Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Vinodkumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102790 of 2022
Decided On : 12-10-2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438, Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 149 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No. 6 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/accused No. 6 sought anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple instances of forgery, creation of bogus sale deeds, and other related offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner/accused No. 6 had signed as a witness in one of the sale deeds and identified the executants. The court also noted that the case was based on documents available with the Sub-Register and other authorities, and the alleged offenses were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the nature of the offenses and the stage of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the offenses, the petitioner's involvement, and the potential impact on the investigation and witnesses. It concluded that there were valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and ordered the petitioner/accused No. 6 to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to specific conditions.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No. 6 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for offenses under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 149 (!) (!) .
The case involves allegations of forgery, creation of bogus sale deeds, and related offenses, with the petitioner identified as a witness who signed one of the sale deeds and identified the executants (!) .
The court considered the nature of the offenses, the petitioner’s limited involvement (mainly signing as a witness), absence of criminal antecedents, willingness to cooperate, and the fact that the offenses are not punishable by death or life imprisonment (!) (!) .
The prosecution argued that the investigation is ongoing, and the petitioner’s arrest could hinder the process, but the court noted that these concerns could be addressed through conditions (!) (!) .
The court imposed specific conditions for bail, including executing a personal bond, appearing before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days, regularly reporting to the police station, cooperating with the investigation, and refraining from influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the decision was based on the assessment that the petitioner’s involvement was limited, and the conditions would ensure the integrity of the investigation and prevent tampering or flight (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 6 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No. 1 said to have created General Power of Attorney (for short 'G.P.A.') of the complainant and his brother on 01.12.2020, forged documents like pan card, aadhar card etc., impersonated the complainant and his brother and created sale deed in his own name. It is alleged that on 02.11.2021 accused No. 1 again forged the sale deed and documents, altered the survey number as 30/6 from 30/1 and created bogus sale deed in favor of accused No. 2-Shrikant Tumari to which accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the witnesses. On 14.12.2021 accused No. 2 got the sale deed cancelled. Pammar-accused No. 3, accused Nos. 4 and 6 are the witnesses to this sale deed. On 16.04.2022 accused No. 1 sold another piece of land to Mahadev Somappa Pammar (accused No. 3) to which accused Nos. 4 and 7 are the witnesses. With regard to property belonging to the friend of the complainant, accused No. 1 has created bogus sale deed in favor of himself on 01.12.2020 and accused Nos. 11 and 12 are the witnesses. On 22.06.2021 accused No. 1 sold the property of Arun Kamat to accused Nos. 8 and 9 Basavaraj Avarolli and Raju Katyayannavar and executed G.P.A. in favour of accused No. 1 again to sell the said land. Thereafter, accused No. 1 sold the said property to accused No. 16 Geeta Chindi in the presence of accused Nos. 14 and 15. The said complaint came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 16 in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused No. 6 apprehending his arrest filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 960/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 21.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged. The petitioner/accused No. 6 only signed as a witness in the sale deed and identified the executants. It is his further submission that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As the case of the prosecution is based on the documents, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the investigation is still in progress, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous offences of cheating, etc. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. Accused No. 1 purchased the property on 01.12.2020 and thereafter he has entered into several transactions with other accused. This petitioner/accused No. 6 has signed as a witness to one of the sale deed executed by accused No. 1 in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The entire case of the
The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail may be granted with stringent conditions when there are valid grounds and the petitioner is willing to cooperate in the investigation.
Anticipatory bail is not to be granted routinely; it requires exceptional circumstances, and the court must assess the prima facie case and potential impact on the investigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
