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

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

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