Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Basavaraj M P vs The State By Kanakapura Town P

High Court Of Karnataka|04 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8720/2017 BETWEEN:
Basavaraj M.P.
S/o Puttabasavegowda, Aged about 42 years, R/o Mahimanahalli Village, Yedamaranahalli Post, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District-571511. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Sampat Bapat, Advocate ) AND:
The State by Kanakapura Town P.S. now represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. .. Respondent ( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.140/2017 of Kanakapura Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 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 Section 420 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.140/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the first purchaser of the property from the petitioner herein. There is a registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the complainant on 8.10.2015. But, subsequently the petitioner sold the same property in favour of others. This is the grievance of the complainant in the complaint. On the basis of this, case came to be registered against the petitioner herein.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the allegations in the complaint, the same are civil in nature. No criminality is involved in the case. He also submitted that, so far as first purchaser is concerned, the registered Sale Deed has already been executed. Therefore, if at all there is any grievance, it is only the second purchaser who has to make such allegations. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition on the ground that when there are two registered Sale Deeds, that itself prima facie goes to show the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that they are civil in nature. Apart from that, he has denied the said allegation and submits that petitioner is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court.
8. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of IPC which is triable by the Magistrate Court and is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent- police are directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC registered in respondent police station in Crime No.140/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Basavaraj M P vs The State By Kanakapura Town P

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
04 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B