Sri. Anand Kumar @ Anand vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner--accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent--police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 464 and 468 r/w. Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent--police in Crime No. 39/2014. The brief facts of the prosecution case that one Srinivas S/o. Late Mariyappa of Chatrakodihallil village lodged a complaint dated 24-01-2014 alleging that the land bearing Sy. No. 65/7B measuring to an extent of 1 acre, 22 guntas situated at Beglibenajenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk, belongs to one Ramappa S/o. Munibyrappa who is none other than the uncle of the complainant and the said land has fallen to the share of the complainant. The petitioner has created forged documents and has got registered sale deed on 05-10-2012 from one Ramappa S/o. Munibyrappa of Arahalli village and for which one M. Srinivas S/o. Byrappa and R. Kishor S/o. Ramakrishnappa has been witnessed. It is also alleged that even though Ramappa has died long back, he has been impersonated by bringing some other person and the witnesses to the sale deed have nothing to do with this act. The complainant requested the police to take action against the culprits. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No. 1 and other accused persons for the alleged offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner--accused No. 1 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent--State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that earlier to this complaint, the petitioner himself filed complaint against the complainant for the alleged offences under Sections 504, 323 and 326 r/w. Section 34 of IPC which was registered in Crime No. 87/2012. Learned counsel made the submission that because the said case was registered against the present complainant and others, as a counter blast, the complainant filed the present complaint. Learned counsel also drawn the attention of this Court, to the statement of Jayamma - the mother of the complainant, as well as the statement of present petitioner recorded by the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No. 87/2012. The counsel also made the submission that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that though Ramappa, the uncle of the complainant expired, the present petitioner with the help of some other persons by impersonating the said Ramappa created the forged documents and obtained the sale deed as if it is executed by the said Ramappa in his favour. Hence, learned Government Pleader made the submission that it is a serious offence of impersonating a person and obtaining the sale deed by creating forged documents. Hence, he submitted that matter is still under investigation, petitioner is absconding and not at all available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. Looking to the FIR registered in Crime No. 87/2012, it goes to show that the present petitioner himself is the complainant in that case and complainant in this case is the accused No. 1 in the said Crime No. 87/2012. Perusing the FIR, so also the statement of mother--Jayamma for the said crime. It goes to show that in respect of the share held by the mother, which portion was cultivated by the present petitioner, the complainant--Srinivas and others were not happy and they were insisting the mother--Jayamma to give the share to them. So this goes to show that in between the present petitioner and the complainant there was enmity in connection with cultivation of the landed property. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is having every force that because of the said reason, complainant filed the present complaint. It is also the case of the present petitioner that he has not committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Looking to the materials on record, in the complaint it is not mentioned on which particular date the said Ramappa expired. The offences alleged are all triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only apprehension of the prosecution as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the present petitioner is not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation, for which, and to secure the presence of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer, as well as before the concerned Court, stringent conditions can be imposed. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent--police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 464 and 468 r/w. Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent --police in Crime No. 39/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall give attendance before the respondent--police once in every fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet; and

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.