These petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail,

in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.241/2021

registered by Nanjanagudu Rural Police Station, Nanjanagudu

Sub-Division, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under

Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that a complaint is filed by one Kasthuri Chandru, Journalist,

wherein an allegation is made that document of petitioner in

Crl.P.No.2096/2022 is taken by the husband of petitioner in

Crl.P.No.2675/2022 and by furnishing the marks, he took the job

at Jubiliant Factory in the year 1999 and he died on account of

Covid-19 Pandemic on 05.09.2020. The other petitioner in

4

Crl.P.No.2675/2022

is

the

wife

of

the

deceased

i.e.,

Vrushabendra, who got the employment and an allegation is

made that, in order to get the employment, he indulged in

creation of the documents and cheated the general public.

Hence, case has been registered and based on the complaint,

the matter is under investigation.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners

would

vehemently contend that the document of accused No.1 was

used by Vrushabendra @ Mahesha, who died in the year 2020

and also got an employment in 1999 and this complainant is not

an affected person and the complaint is not filed by the employer

i.e., Nanjanagudu Jubiliyent Factory and the employer is also

arraigned as accused No.5. The learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2096/2022 would submit

that he had lodged the complaint in the year 2006 itself that he

lost

the

marks

card

and

the

police

have

also

issued

acknowledgment for having lodged the complaint in the year

2006 itself in terms of the endorsement dated 24.06.2006.

Apart from that, complaint was given on 17.02.2022 and no role

5

is placed by this petitioner even entrusting the original

documents to the deceased.

5.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

in

Crl.P.No.2675/2022 would submit that the husband of the

petitioner got the employment in the year 1999 and her

marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2000 and at the time of

getting the employment, she was not married and falsely

implicated this petitioner and this petitioner will co-operative

with the Investigating Officer with regard to the allegation made

in the complaint. Hence, she may be enlarged on bail.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that in the

complaint, specific allegation is made that marks card of the

accused No.1 was made use in getting the employment and

there is a clear allegation of fraud and the offences invoked are

under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC.

7.

Having heard the respective counsel and also looking

into the factual aspects of the case, employment was obtained in

6

the year 1999 and the person, who got the employment is also

no more and he died in the year 2020 and allegation against the

accused No.1 is that he gave original documents to the deceased

and he was having acquaintance with the deceased. Whether,

he gave the original documents in getting the employment is a

matter of trial and has to be probed. The allegation against the

petitioner-wife of the deceased in Crl.P.No.2675/2022 is that she

also indulged in such an act.

8.

Having taken note of the allegations made in the

complaint, that too, by Journalist and not by the employer, it is a

fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in

favour of the petitioners, directing the petitioners to co-operate

with the Investigating Officer for further investigation in the

matter and also by imposing certain conditions to protect and

safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the

following:-

ORDER

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitione