IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1917/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Yathish S., S/o. Boraiah M.B., Aged about 31 years, R/at No.13, 2nd Cross, Ideal Homes Township, Rajarajeshwar Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 062.
2. Venkataramana Swamy, S/o. Giriyappa H.T., Aged about 47 years, R/o.No.508, 10th Main, 18th Cross, MRCR Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 040.
3. Padmavathi K., W/o. Venkataramana Swamy, Aged about 40 years, R/o.No.508, 10th Main, 18th Cross, MRCR Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Manjunatha V. Rayappa, Advocate a/w Sri. Vijaya M.N., Advocate) AND:
The State by Chandralayout Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru. ... Respondent (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.389/2018 registered by Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 465, 120(B), 420, 468 and 417 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have filed the petition seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest with respect to the proceedings in Crime No.389/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 423, 34, 465, 120B, 468, 417 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case that is made out in the private complaint against the petitioners is that the complainant is the owner of property having purchased the same through the sale deed.
3. It is stated that petitioner No.1 has executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by relying upon a registered power of attorney which is said to have been executed by the name of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she has not executed any General Power of Attorney and the said document is a concocted document.
4. The petitioners contend that as the Power of Attorney executed is registered, the allegations of the complainant are matters with respect to which the evidence is in the nature of rest on documentary evidence. The petitioners further state that they are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation including providing information with respect to the transactions.
5. Complaint came to be presented before the magistrate, who directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that petitioners had filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Judge who had dismissed the application stating that there is a possibility that the petitioners could meddle with the documents if they are enlarged on bail .
6. Taking note of the allegations made and the nature of offences made is not punishable for imprisonment for life or death and noting that prima facie the evidence to be looked into decides the commission of offence is the registered power of attorney, though the matter requires to be investigated, no case is made out for custodial interrogation. The question as to whether the complainant has executed the registered power of attorney or the complainant’s signature has been forged is to be ascertained by resorting into scientific methods such as reference to forensic laboratories. Further it is noted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are mere purchasers of the property and as to whether they were in the know of the offences alleged or have colluded with the petitioner No.1 is matter to be factually ascertained. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 423, 34, 465, 120(B), 468, 417 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The petitioners shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer at Chandra Layout Police Station, in connection with Crime No.389/2018 within 15 days from receipt of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(b) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and furnish all necessary documents relating to the transactions of sale by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
(c) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(d) The petitioners shall physically present themselves and mark their attendance before the concerned SHO once every fortnight between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm till filing of the charge sheet.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK