Uday Prathap Singh vs State Of Karnataka

K. N. Phaneendra, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State. Perused the records.

The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 in Crime No.35/2020 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable

under sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 464 read with section 34 of IPC.

The brief allegations are that:

On 5.3.2020, the accused No.2 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded, wherein he has stated that the accused persons have created

some fake documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from Canara Bank and Accused No.4 has pretended himself that he is the owner of BDA Site

bearing No.1123, formed by BDA, situated at Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 2nd Block, Bengaluru, with active collusion with Accused Nos.2 & 3,

has obtained loan of Rs.1,86,00,000/- from Canara Bank. Therefore, the police are investigating the matter on the allegations made against A1 to A4.

But, subsequently during the course of investigation, Accused No.6 was also arrested stating that he has actually involved in manipulating the

documents in the name of Accused No.4 and that information appears to have been given by accused No.2.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that Accused No.6 was arrested

on 29.2.2020, but till date, no charge sheet has been filed.

In view of the situation prevailing in the country, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel that the accused could not able to file necessary

application before the jurisdictional Magistrate u/s.167 of Cr.PC. Though it cannot be a ground to grant bail, nevertheless, it goes without saying that

the offences are punishable with maximum punishment of 7 years and the charge sheet ought to have been filed within 60 days.

Be that as it may, even on the merits of the case, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the manipulation of the documents by

Accused No.6 in the name of Accused No.4, Knowing fully well that those documents would be used by A1 to A4 for the purpose of obtaining loan

from Canara Bank, this fact has to be proved during trial.

Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a ground for grant of regular bail particularly

under section 439 of Cr.PC, as the petitioner has already been arrested, interrogated and presently he has been in Judicial custody. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.35/2020 of Yelahanka New Town Police

Station, Bengaluru, registered for the alleged offences, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause or

reason.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed

of.

(v) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency as and when called for.

(vi) The jail authorities before release shall conduct medical examination of the petitioners as required, in view of pandemic COVID-19.