IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7311 OF 2017 C/w CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7890 OF 2017 IN CRL.P. NO.7311/2017:
BETWEEN:
Sri. Manjunath S Kulakarni, Aged about 31 years, S/o Shankar Kulkarni, R/at No.22/23, 2nd Cross, Anandanagar, Old Huballi, Dharwad District.
Pin-580024.
(By Sri. M.R.Bannihatti, Adv) IN CRL.P.NO.7890/2017:
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivanna S/o Biligaiah, Aged about 41 years, D/o 97, 5th Cross, R/at No.97, 5th Cross, Brindavan Extension, ... Petitioner Mysuru-570020.
(By Sri. Veerabhadraswamy, Adv) AND:
... Petitioner The State of Karnataka By Jayalakshmipuram Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. … Common Respondent (By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.52/2017 of Jayalakshmipuram P.S., Mysore District for the Offence P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.
2. The first petition is filed by accused No.7 and the connected petition is by accused No.10. Both petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the accused Nos.7 and 10 of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 registered in respondent- police station Crime No. 52/2017.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that Registrar of Karnataka State Open University (‘KSOU” for short) filed a complaint stating that Health and Family Services Department, Bengaluru, has sent six marks cards for verification by the University. On verification, it was found that said marks cards are bogus and not issued by the University. Accused No.6 is one who has submitted the said marks cards to the said Department. However, the Registrar-KSOU has sought for further information in respect of the said documents from the Health and Family Services Department. But they have not sent any information. Hence the Registrar-KSOU filed complaint before the police. After registration of the case, police have seized the marks cards from the University under a mahazar.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners–accused Nos. 7 and 10. So also the arguments of the learned HCGP in respect of both the petitions on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Counsels for the petitioners made the submission that so far as the present petitioners-accused Nos. 7 and 10 are concerned, their names are not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. It is also their submission that even looking to the prosecution material, no prima-facie case is made out as against them. There is a false implication of these two petitioners. They also made the submission that this court has already granted bail in respect of accused No.11 who was also placed similarly and so also another bail order copy of which is produced in respect of accused No.12. Hence the learned counsels made the submission that the present petitioners are also similarly placed with similar set of allegations, hence they submitted in view of the order of this court granting bail to accused No.11 and 12, both the petitions are to be allowed and petitioners-accused Nos. 7 and 10 may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the prosecution material there are serious allegations that fake marks cards were produced before the Health and Family Services Department and when they were sent for verification, it is noticed that they have not issued the said marks cards. He made the submission that matter is still under investigation. Therefore, petitioners-accused Nos. 7 and 10 are not entitled to be granted with bail 7. I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials produced. So also perused the order passed by this court in two bail petitions. One in respect of accused No. 11 and another in respect of accused No.12. In both those petitions, this court has considered the merits of the case and ultimately granted bail to accused Nos. 11 and 12.
8. Coming to the case of the prosecution, as per the complaint averments, there are no allegations so far as accused Nos. 7 and 10. Even their names are also not mentioned in the complaint as well as in the FIR. Looking to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application in respect of accused No7 is concerned, though it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that when the police have conducted the search in the house of accused No.7, nothing incriminating was found in the house of accused No.7. Inspite of such observation, bail petition came to be rejected. Both the petitioners herein are in custody since from the date of their arrest. They have undertaken in the bail petitions that they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
9. Therefore, looking to the prosecution materials, so also the order by this court regarding accused Nos. 11 and 12, I am of the opinion that petitioners have made out a case for allowing the petitions.
10. Accordingly, bail petitions are allowed. Accused Nos. 7 and 10 are ordered to be released on bail of the said offences subject to following conditions:-
1. Each petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees only) and he has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners have to appear before the Trial Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv