Varadaraj R & ORS vs State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-

police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 467,

471, 468 of IPC, registered in Respondent-police station in Cr.No.302/2017.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments of the complaint that the complainant is owner in possession of the property bearing

Sy.No.20 situated at Attur village, measuring 4 acres 08 guntas. On 01.09.2017 out of 4 acres 08 guntas, the complainant agreed to sell the 2

acres to Vidyashankar, Prabhakar and Hemanth Kumar and he was shocked to know that certain person claiming himself to be agreement holder

of the said property trying to sell the same and rushed to Sub-Registrar Office, Yalahanka and on verification learnt that Sathish.K, a resident of

Addiganahalli, Varadaraj of Attur hatched a conspiracy with their associates to knock off the property with Thilak, Vijay and Thimmegowda,

created forged and fabricated a un-registered GPA on 18.05.2016, appointed Sathish.K as his Attorney attested by Thilak and another persons

and created an agreement of sale on 04.10.2017 and registered by the same before Yalahanka Sub-Registrar office using the fabricated GPA in

favour of Varadaraj, agreed to sell 4 acres 08 guntas for 4 crores and the same was witnesses by Vijay and Thimmegowda and accordingly on the

basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered for the above said offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 and 5, so also learned High Court Government

pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel made submission that the false allegations are made against the petitioners herein and they never created such false document

and not involved in committing the alleged offences. He made submission that under the GPA executed by the complainant in favour of accused

No.1-Sathish.K, there was an agreement for sale entered between Sathish.K and Varadaraju-petitioner No.1 herein. Therefore, he submitted that

it is a transaction of civil nature in between Sathish.K and Varadaraju. Therefore, question of committing the alleged offence by the petitioners does

not arise. He has also drawn the attention of the Court that 4 months earlier to the present complaint, the accused No.1-Sathish.K lodged the

complaint against the complainant and others, which is registered in Respondent-Police station in Cr.No.298/2017 for the offence punishable

under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, he made submission that is the main reason for filing subsequent complaint, to over come the earlier

complaint filed by Sathish.K as against the complainant. Hence, he submitted that there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution as

against the present petitioners and hence, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition contending that there are serious allegations made in the

complaint that the accused No.1-Sathish.K in conspiracy with other accused persons created and fabricated GPA and there is also impersonation.

He made submission that the matter is still under investigation. In view of such serious allegations, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with

anticipatory bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in this case.

So far as GPA is concerned, it took place between the complainant and accused No.1-Sathish.K. It is the complainant''s case that the said

GPA is created and fabricated and he never executed any GPA in favour of one Sathish.K. But, the accused No.1 himself claimed that it was

executed by the complainant in his favour and on the strength of the GPA registered in the Sub-Registrar office, he entered into an agreement for

sale with one Varadaraj-1st petitioner herein for the sale of property of 4 acres 08 guntas. Therefore, this transaction of agreement for sale is

concerned, it is entered between one Sathish.K and Varadaraj, who are said to be the seller and purchaser, involved in the said transaction. There

are serious allegations at this stage in the complaint. In the complaint it is stated the said document is created and fabricated and even there is

allegation of impersonation also. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the I.O has to collect the material in this regard and to file final

report. Therefore, so far as the petition in respect of the 1st petitioner-Varadaraj.R is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant

bail to the 1st Petitioner. Accordingly, petition in respect of the 1st petitioner is hereby rejected.

In so far as, petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, only the allegation that they are witnesses to the said agreement for sale

and there is no specific averments that knowing fully well that on the basis of the fabricated GPA, the transaction took place, they put their

signatures to the agreement for sale. They have contended in the bail petition that they are innocent, not involved in committing the offence as

alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, considering the materials on record, so far as the petitioners No.2 and 3 is concerned, by imposing

reasonable conditions they can be admitted to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition in respect of petitioners Nos.2 and 3 is hereby allowed. The

Respondent-police is directed to enlarge the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 and petitioner No.3/accused No.5 on bail in the event of their arrest

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 468 of IPC, registered in Respondent-police station in

Cr.No.302/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

concerned arresting authority.

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

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

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bonds

and the surety bonds.