SRI. V. RAVI KUMAR & ANR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent

police to release the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 4 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468,

465, 467, 416, 417, 419, 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code registered in respondent police station Crime No.375/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 and also the learned High Court Govt. Pleader

for the respondent-State.

The averments made in the complaint as per the case of the prosecution that the petitioners-accused No.1 and 4 herein along with other

accused persons created and fabricated false documents like GPA and the sale deeds and thereby, they have committed the alleged offences. On

the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences as against the petitioners-accused No.1 and and other accused

persons.

Counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 and also the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission referring to the allegations made in the complaint and taking this court to the relevant

paragraphs in the said complaint. It is his submission that the complainant''s company has already filed two civil suites in O.S. No.389/2016 and

390/2016 wherein, the relief of declaration about the very documents has been sought. He submitted that similar set of allegations are made in the

civil suit and prayer of declaration is sought in both the suites. Hence, he submitted that the civil court has to consider the allegations made in the

said suit and the matters are to be disposed of. Regarding the declaratory relief about the documents is concerned, it is his submission that similar

set of allegations are made in the complaint subsequent to filing the suites. Hence, he submitted that the accused persons never involved in creating

such documents as false allegations are made against them. They are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency as directed by this court by

imposing reasonable conditions. Hence, learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and admit the petitioners-accused No.1 and 4 for

anticipatory bail.

Per contra the learned High Court Govt. Pleader opposed the petition on the ground that looking to the allegations made in the very complaint, it

prima-facie goes to show that the petitioners herein involved in creating and fabricating the false documents like GPA, agreement of sale, sale

deeds etc. Hence, learned High Court Govt. Pleader submitted that when such serious allegations are made against the petitioners herein, it is

necessary to have the custodial interrogation of both the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and all the documents produced by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. The copies of the plaint in O.S. No.389/2016 is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Looking to the prayer column in

the said suit, firstly it is sought to deliver the vacant physical and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. This prayer

itself goes to show that the plaintiff''s company is not in possession of the schedule property in the said suit and the second one in furtherance of

relief of possession, grant a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants Nos.1 to 8 restraining the defendants Nos.1 to

8, their agents, servants, henchmen, representatives and/ or any other person acting on their behalf or claiming through or under them from in any

manner from interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and absolute enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Third prayer is cost of the

suit Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. and fourth prayer is important, declare the sale deed dated 30.03.2016 registered on

03.11.2016 as null and void. So also sought for perpetual injunction directing the defendant Nos.9 and 10 not to register any deeds that may be

produced for registration by defendant Nos.1 to 8, so also the learned counsel for the petitioners produced the copy of the plaint in O.S.

No.390/2016. There also with similar set of allegations and similar reliefs are claimed. Even in this suit also, the fourth prayer is to declare the sale

deed as null and void. So, these are the matters which are under enquiry before the competent civil court. Regarding declaratory relief is concerned

similar set of allegations are made in the said suits and subsequently, the company filed a present complaint as against the petitioners and other

accused persons. The petitioners'' contention that they never involved in such false and fabrication of documents. They are the genuine documents

and they are also contesting the suits by appearing in the said suits. Therefore, they contended that they are prepared to abide any reasonable

condition/s to be imposed by the court. Even the petitioners are prepared to cooperate with the investigating agency. The alleged offences are

triable by the Magistrate court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of these materials place on

record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to release the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 on bail, in the event of their arrest for

the offences alleged, subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioners have to execute a personal bond each for Rs.1,00,000-00 [Rupees One Lakh only] and have to furnish one solvent

surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii) Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.

iv) The Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order and to execute a

personal bond and the surety bond.