IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4219 OF 2019 BETWEEN LOKESH @ MULAMA, S/O.LATE.VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. NO. 16/3, 4TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, NEAR MANIPAL HOSPITAL, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.KIRAN.S.JAVALI, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 092.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.293/2018 OF RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,420,506,120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant by name Nagamma, who is a home maker lodged a complaint stating that her husband passed away about 5 years ago and she has been residing with her two children. Her son is an auto driver and her daughter is married and residing in Gonipura of Kumbalagodu village. The complainant belongs to schedule caste community and she has a landed property bearing Sy.No.11, measuring 2 acres, situated at Pattanagere village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was granted in favour of the father-in- law of the complainant under Darkasthu. It is specifically alleged that in order to knock of the said property a person by name Muddaiah and his children trespassed into the said property constructed five sheds. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the complainant, one Ashwathanarayana, son of her brother-in-law, and the petitioner herein have falsely assured that they will solve the problem and thereby received some original documents from her.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that on 7.8.2014, said Ashwathanarayana took the complainant and her children to the house of one Muniraju stating that he would solve the problem by filing a suit before the court and thereby obtained signatures on a blank stamp paper stating that it is necessary to file an affidavit in the case and she has also signed on the documents. The said documents were in possession of the petitioner herein and said Ashwathanarayana informed the complainant that the case filed was dismissed, thereby they created some story in order to knock of the property. It is the case of the complainant that she has filed an application before the Upa-Tahsildar seeking transfer of khata into her name. In that context, she came to know that the accused No.3 got the agreement of sale and she has no right and title over the said property. Therefore, she has sought for return of documents from accused no.2. It is alleged that accused no.2 threatened the complainant to do away with her life etc., On these allegations police have registered a case in Cr.No.293/2018 for the offence punishable under sections 506, 120-B, 420 and 416 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also Section 3 of the KCOC Act has been invoked and thereafter investigated the matter.
4. It is seen that the allegation made against this petitioner is that he colluded with accused no.1 namely Ashwanatharayana, who actually taken the documents from the complainant assuring that accused nos. 1 and 2 were having possession over the said document and they have concocted some documents. Thereafter, the petitioner /accused no.2 has been arrested and he is in Judicial custody, which shows that he is not required for any further investigation.
5. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, it is very difficult at this stage to understand whether actually KCOC Act is attracted or not, because this is an offence pertaining to a dispute with regard to the landed property. Under the above said circumstances, if the above offence is attracted, it has to be established during the course of full dressed trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitoneralso contended before this Court with all responsibility that, accused No.3 had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the invocation of KCOC Act by the police and the court has already quashed the invocation of the said provision.
7. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, almost similar allegations are made as that of allegations against accused No.1 and 3. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, particularly, petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 293/2018 of Rajarajeshwari nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 406,420,506, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the KCOC Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees one lakh only) 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.
(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.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*