2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 51499
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9375/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.C. MAHESH
S/O LATE H.N. CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
N.R. PURA TALUK-577 134
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVCOATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUDIGERE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, SPP-2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
PRAYING TO ENLAREGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.91/2022 OF MUDIGERE P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860
AND U/S.192(A) AND 192(B) OF KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE (AMENDMENT) 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC MUDIGERE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR
ORDERS
ON
22.11.2022
COMING
ON
FOR
8PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER9 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
The petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this petition
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail
in Crime No.91/2022 of Mudigere Police Station,
Chikkamagaluru registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 of IPC,
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mudigere.
2.
The brief factual matrix leading to the case
are as under:-
The Tahsildar of Mudigere on the basis of the
directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner and
report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner has
submitted a complaint against the present petitioner
and others on 14.06.2022. It is alleged in the
complaint that Accused No.1 was working as a
Revenue Inspector, Balur Hobli of Mudigere Taluk
during the period from 12.02.2019 to 02.02.2021.
Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were additional/in charge Revenue
Inspectors of Balur Village and Village Accountants of
3
Bhoomi Section respectively during the said period. It
is also alleged that, they have effected mutation
entries and issued RTC in the name of 11 persons with
respect to the land bearing Sy. No.168 to the extent of
04 acres 38 guntas each without there being any
application in From No.50 and 53, without any file or
without approval of the Akrama-Sakrama Committee.
It is also alleged that names of grantees are also not
mentioned in the register of issuance of saguvali chit
and hence, it is alleged that, they have committed
criminal breach of trust. In this regard, the complaint
came to be registered initially for the offence
punishable under Section 409 r/w. 34 of IPC and
Section 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 ( for short, 8KLR9 Act9).
3.
The petitioner was arrested and later on he
was
remanded
to
judicial
custody.
Hence,
the
petitioner has moved a petition before the learned
Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and his bail
4
petition came to be rejected and hence, he is before
this Court.
4.
Heard
the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner/Accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the
Respondent-State. Perused the records.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that necessary ingredients of the alleged
offences
are
not
at
all
attracted
and
criminal
proceedings in respect of Accused No.3-N.Girisha (who
was arraigned as Accused No.2 in FIR) were quashed
by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7458/2022 vide
order dated 18.06.2022. He would also contend that
the documents produced in the charge sheet itself
clearly disclose that the resolution of the Akrama-
Sakrama Committee and the mutation was also
certified by the Tahsildar and proper steps were taken
in this regard. It is also alleged that only on the
ground of old files are missing, the petitioner was
being prosecuted and Bank loans were advanced to the
5
beneficiaries. He would further contend that after
arrest, the petitioner was taken to PC custody and
subsequently remanded to judicial custody, which
disclose that his presence is no more required by the
Investigating Agency. He would also contend that the
offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with
death or life imprisonment and offences are triable by
the learned Magistrate. Further it is contended that the
petitioner being a public servant, there is no chance of
his abscondence, and hence, he would seek for
admitting the petitioner on bail.
6.
Per
contra,
the
learned
SPP-II
would
contend that the allegations in the charge sheet
disclose that, all the documents have been forged and
Accused No.2-Geetha (who was arraigned as Accused
No.3 in FIR) being a computer operator, is still
absconding and in case the petitioner is enlarged on
bail, there is likelihood of he influencing Accused No.2-
Geetha, as she has got sufficient material knowledge
and as such, the matter requires to be viewed
6
seriously. It is further contended that the investigation
is still in progress and there are no documents in the
office and all the documents were manipulate and
created and the complaint is based on the report of the
Dep