IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7888/2017 BETWEEN:
K Somashekar S/o Krishnappa Aged about 34 years R/o Kattigenahalli Yelahanka Post Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru-560 064. .. PETITIONER (By Sri Srinivas Rao S S, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Yelahanka Police Station Bengaluru.
2. Station House Officer District Crime Branch New Delhi. Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to i) direct the Yelhanka Police and District Crime Branch, New Delhi to release the petitioner, forthwith, in the event of his arrest in connection with crime registered by the second respondent Police in Cr.No.70/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 of IPC, or in alternative, ii) grant transit bail to the petitioner for a period of 8 weeks from the date of order till the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Court at Delhi seeking appropriate relief.
This 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 a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.70/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.70/2017 against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences. The said crime is purportedly registered on the basis of a written information lodged by one Mr. V K Rajan, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, alleging the sending of a letter dated 29.08.2016 under the name and signature of “Sri Somashekar, Director (Public Grievance) Ministry of Home Affairs”, prima facie, the letter appearing to be forged one as no such officer with said name and organization i.e., “Indian Council of National Affairs, Cabinet Secretariat Off.No.11, Firoz Shah Road, New Delhi-110 001” as depicted in the letter exist. The same appearing to be a serious case of forgery/impersonation. The second respondent having registered the aforesaid crime, has been making hectic attempts to apprehend the petitioner with the aid and assistance of the first respondent police, in whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that firstly, the present petitioner has not at all committed the alleged offence and there is false implication of the petitioner in the case. It is also his contention that there is an allegation against the petitioner that he forged the signature and he has impersonated the sitting Member of Parliament, but the petitioner has not at all used the said letter against any body committing the said offence. This petition is filed seeking transitory bail for the temporary period. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be granted with transitory bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for creating such letter and there is impersonation of the sitting Member of Parliament. Further, there is suppression of material facts by the petitioner. He had approached the Court at Delhi i.e., Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, who is also the Special Judge, seeking bail at New Delhi. The said Court after considering the merits of the case, ultimately, held that considering the nature and the gravity of offence, no grounds were made out and accordingly, dismissed the application. Then, the present petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi seeking anticipatory bail. Learned HCGP made over the copies of bail application presented before the High Court of Delhi so also the order passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein it goes to show that the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the instant application and accordingly, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.8.2017. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Delhi and the High Court of Delhi on the bail applications.
7. Perusing the materials and the averments made in the petition, nowhere it is stated by the petitioner that he had applied for bail and the same came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Delhi and then, he approached the High Court of Delhi and subsequently, he withdrew the said bail application. Therefore, he has not clearly said about the factual matrix of the case and there is suppression. Apart from that, he has approached the Sessions Court at Bengaluru wherein also he was not clear to the Court that he was seeking transitory bail. While submitting this petition, he made submission that the application is for transitory bail. Even when the police officers went to the address where the petitioner resides, they came to know of the fact that the petitioner was not residing in the said address. The matter is still under investigation. Considering the materials placed on record and the nature of the offence alleged that the petitioner forged the letter so also impersonation of the sitting Member of Parliament, it is not a fit case to grant even the transitory bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-