IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3833/2019 Between:
Sanjay Kumar A. Huded, S/o Ajith Kumar, Aged about 28 years, C/o Roopa Paramanji, Maruthi Galli, Gandhigawd, Khanapur, Belgaum – 59111. … Petitioner (By Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the bail in Cr. No.61/2018 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 420, 465, 471 and 468 of IPC, 1860.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.61/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that applications were called for the posts of ‘Typists’ by the High Court of Karnataka and it is stated that the petitioner had submitted his application. It is alleged that the petitioner had sent a fabricated letter from the Office of Prime Minister recommending that he be appointed to the post of ‘Typist’ in the High Court of Karnataka. On suspicion and investigation by the Vigilance of High Court, a complaint was filed against the petitioner, pursuant to which FIR has been lodged. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
3. It is noticed that the Sessions Court had rejected the application of the petitioner stating that filing of charge sheet by itself would not in any way entitle the petitioner to claim changed circumstances for grant of bail and in light of rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner as per the order dated 6.5.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, looking into the nature of offence that is made out, which rests on documentary evidence, the proof of commission of offence is a matter for trial. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State opposes grant of bail and contends that it is a serious offence and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Looking into the nature of complaint and the offences made out, the case rests entirely on documentary evidence and therefore, the question as to whether the documents submitted by the petitioner are genuine or not and the fact of commission of offence as made out in the charge sheet is to be proved during trial. Further, looking into the nature of offences on which the case rests, the question of tampering with the eye-witness, as such, does not arise in the present case. It is to be further noted that the proceedings relating to grant of bail cannot be construed to be punitive in nature, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.61/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
8. In light of disposal of the main matter, the relief sought for in the interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of as requiring no further orders.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR