SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23341

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA
HARISH K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/11769/2022



- 1 -

CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

HARISH. K,

S/O KEMPANNA,

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

OCC: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION,

BANGALORE - 560 091.

R/O NO.20, 4TH MAIN,

LAKSHMAN NAGARA,

OPP: MOHAN THEATRE,

HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

SUNKADAKATTE,

BANGALORE - 560 091

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI: C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR

SRI: CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 4

URBAN DIVISION KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: PRASANNA KUMAR .P., SPL. PP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 36, 37, 119, 409,

Digitally signed by

NANDINI B G

Location: High

Court Of Karnataka

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022

420, 465, 468, 471, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND

UNDER SECTIONS 7(A)(C), 7A AND 8 AND 13(1)(A) READ WITH

SECTION 13(2) OF P.C ACT ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY

CIVIL

AND

SESSIONS

JUDGE

AND

SPL.JUDGE

(P.C

ACT)

BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.34 is before this Court seeking

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.60 of

2022 of High Grounds Police Station, pending on the file of the

learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH No.24), registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 36, 37, 119, 409,

420, 465, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 7(a)(c), 7A and 8 and

13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for

short 'the PC Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged

by the informant P Narasimhamurthy.

2.

Heard Sri C H Jadhav, learned senior advocate for

Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P

- 3 -

CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022

Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3.

Learned

senior

advocate

for

the

petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.34. He

is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any

offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the

matter without any basis. Initially, FIR not registered against

22 accused. Petitioner was not named in it. During

investigation, this petitioner is falsely implicated arraying him

as accused No.34.

4.

The petitioner is a public servant working as Sub

Inspector of Police, Byadarahalli Police Station. He was never

entrusted with any work relating to the recruitment of

candidates for the post of PSIs. He was apprehended on

13.06.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Initially,

FIR was registered with Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi

alleging malpractice in conducting examination and tampering

with the answer sheets. All the accused who were named in

that case are already enlarged on bail. However, High Grounds

police registered Crime No.60 of 2022 against 22 accused

- 4 -

CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022

alleging malpractice and tampering of OMR sheets. All those

accused are already enlarged on bail. Investigation is already

completed and the charge sheet is filed. It is alleged that the

petitioner acted as a middleman in collecting the amount from

accused Nos.14 and 16 and retained Rs.5 lakhs as his

commission. There are absolutely no material in support of

such allegations. Section 409 of IPC is not at all applicable as

there was no crimin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top