IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1498/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Suresh N.
S/o. Narayanappa Aged about 35 years 2. Smt. Divya W/o. Suresh N.
Aged about 34 years Both are R/at. No.55 4th cross, 2nd Main Abbigere Extension Chikkabanavara Post Bengaluru – 560 096.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADVOCATE.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Rajajinagar Police, Bengaluru – 560 010 Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.6/2019 (CR NO.510/2019) OF RAJAJINAGAR P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420 R/W. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, to release them on anticipatory bail in Cr.No.6/2019 (Cr.No.510/2019) of Rajajinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections. 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. This case is taken for consideration out of turn, as the learned counsel for the petitioners pleads urgency on the ground that petitioner/accused No.2 is a pregnant lady and at any time she may gave birth to a child.
3. The gist of the complaint is that petitioner/accused No.1 has got a site bearing No.71, measuring 35’ x 45’, at Kammanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, through the gift deed executed by his mother Smt. Muniyamma. As petitioner No.1 intended to sell the said property, after verifying the documents, complainant has agreed to purchase the same for Rs.70.00 lakhs on 12/09/2017. Complainant has also paid Rs.35.00 lakhs to the petitioner No.1 through a cheque on the same day. On 06/12/2018, petitioner No.1 brought his mother – Muniyamma, for execution of the sale deed and sale deed is also registered. Subsequently, it was discovered that the said Muniyamma was not his mother and by impersonation the sale deed was got executed. On the basis of complaint, a case is registered against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 419 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant is doing finance business. As there are financial transactions between the petitioners and complainant, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioners/accused persons. It is further submitted that the name of his mother is Muniyamma and she only came and executed the sale deed and there is no impersonation of any person. He further submitted that petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court and are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioners/accused persons got the gift deed so also the sale deed executed on 06/12/2018 by impersonation of Muniyamma.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is absconding and he may not be available for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He further submitted that petitioner/accused No.2 has also cheated the complainant and if the petitioners/accused persons are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may not be available for trial.
6. I have carefully and cautiously examined the averments of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. On a close reading of the complaint and other materials, I feel that whether the petitioner/accused No.1 by impersonation got executed the gift deed as well as sale deed dated 06/12/2018, is a matter to be adjudicated only during the trial. The allegation as against accused/petitioner No.2 is that she is also a signatory to the sale deed. Except that, there are no overt acts attributed against petitioner No.2. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioners/accused persons are released on bail, it will meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, the petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.6/2019 (Cr.No.510/2019) of Rajajinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections. 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions;
i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Agency within 15 days from today.
iii) Petitioners shall mark their attendance once in 15 days in a month i.e. on every 1st and 15th between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station till the charge sheet is filed.
iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly.
v) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer for interrogation.
Msu Sd/- JUDGE