IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8795 OF 2018 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8796 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
K.H.MURALI KRISHNA S/O M.H.KENCHARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1ST DIVISION ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL CHIKKABALLAPURA R/O DIVYA NILAYA, WARD NO.20, NANDI ROAD, SAW-MILL, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563 125 ... COMMON PETITIONER IN BOTH PETITIONS (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563 125 REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... COMMON RESPONDENT IN BOTH PETITIONS (BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8795/2018 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.149/2018 OF CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 463, 465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8796/2018 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.32/2018 OF CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 463, 465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Since parties to these cases are common and they have some bearing on each other, they are taken up together for final disposal by this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.8795/2018 arises out of Crime No.149/2018 of Chickballapura Police Station. Criminal Petition No.8796/2018 arises out of Crime No.32/2018 of Chickballapura Police Station.
3. Both the above said cases were registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of complaint of one Dr.Vijay Kumar M.V., the District Surgeon, District Hospital, Chickballapura.
4. In Crime No.32/2018, it was alleged that the petitioner forged the signature of complainant’s predecessor-in-office on the medical reimbursement bill submitted by one R.Suresh Babu, the Process Server of the court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chintamani, for a sum of `20,86,612/- for the counter signature of the District Surgeon. It is further alleged that on verification it was found that the claimant was entitled to medical reimbursement of `6,09,100/- only, but the petitioner had countersigned the bill certifying for a sum of `13,72,354/-.
5. When case in Crime No.32/2018 was pending, complaint in Crime No.149/2018 was filed by the same complainant alleging that on tracing the fraud in R.Suresh Babu’s medical reimbursement bill, the records of his office were verified and it was found that the petitioner has passed 187 such medical reimbursement bills of Primary School Teachers of the said taluk, forging the signature of his predecessor-in- office and thereby played fraud, forging of the documents, etc.
6. Sri.Shankarappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant’s predecessor did not file any complaint alleging forging of her signature and that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. He further submits that for the same offence, two complaints were filed and two cases are registered.
7. Learned Government Pleader submits that both the cases are still at the investigation stage.
8. Both the complaints relate to different crimes. The complaint in Crime No.32/2018 relates to single transaction of one R.Suresh Babu consisting of bill of `20,86,612/-. The complaint in Crime No.149/2018 relates to 187 transactions of other different persons. Therefore, the contention that regarding the same incident two complaints were filed is not found acceptable.
9. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the case involves big racket of claiming false medical reimbursement bills. The case is still at the inception of the investigation. This Court is satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the matter.
10. Under these circumstances, these are not fit cases to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-