The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant anticipatory bail was based on the lack of substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, rather than the petitioner's status as a public official.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Badamikar, J. - The petitioner-accused No.21 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the Gubbi Police in Cr.No.157/2022 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, Tumkuru District in CC No.4207/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

3. Brief factual matrix leading to the case are that accused No.1-G.H.Satish Kumar was working as Second Division Assistant in Gubbi Taluk Record Room. It is alleged that while he was working as Second Division Assistant, he forged certain documents for the period between 1995 and 2000 by entering the names of the certain persons illegally in the revenue records namely RTC in respect of Government Land. After noticing the same, the complainant, who is Grade-II Tahsildar lodged the complaint against Satish Kumar. During the course of the investigation, accused No.2 who is a Real Estate Broker was arrested by the police and on interrogation, it is found that he has received certain amounts from the present petitioner for creating revenue records in the name of his mother and his sister.

4. It is also alleged that Rs. 3,50,000/- was also transferred in the name of accused No.2 by the petitioner by way of online transaction. Hence, it is alleged that the present petitioner, who is working as a Town Municipal Council President has highhandedly grabbed the government land and hence he was also implicated. Meanwhile, the I.O. completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The allegations against the present petitioner are that neither he nor his family members have cultivated Sy.No.31 of Government land of Yalakatte village. He colluded with accused No.2 and transferred Rs. 3,50,000/-through online banking to him and 4 acres 2 guntas was mutated illegally in the name of his mother and 4 acres was mutated illegally in the name of his sister Shantha. Hence, he was also prosecuted by the I.O., as accused No.21 and is shown to be absconding. The petitioner apprehending his arrest has approached the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned Senior counsel all along contended that the charge sheet was submitted on 90th day and the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.21 but in any of the remand applications, there are any allegations against him, though it is alleged that accused No.2 was said to have been arrested long back and his confession statement came to be recorded. It is his further contention that the transaction is alleged to be in the name of mother and sister but they were neither arrayed as accused nor witnesses. He would also contend that though the allegation regarding online transfer of Rs. 3,50,000/- to accused No.2, but in fact he has paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to accused No.2 towards brokerage amount pertaining to Real Estate Development Agreement entered into with the owners wherein accused No.2 has acted as a broker towards brokerage charges. He would also contend that the rest of the amount was never transferred by him and the document produced by the petitioner regarding account Statement pertaining to accused No.2 discloses that it was by one Annappa and not by the petitioner and the account details does not tally. He would contend that I.O. did not obtain the account details of the so-called Annappa. He would also contend that if at all the confession statement of accused No.2 was base for implication of the present petitioner, in the first remand itself there should have been reference of the present petitioner but that is not forthcoming and for 21/2 months no steps were taken. It is also alleged that three material documents are said to have been relied upon by the prosecution but they were not part of the inves