Sri. Babu S/O Bheemanna Talewad vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5380 Kant

                         1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                      BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102226 OF 2021

   BETWEEN:

   SRI BABU S/O. BHEEMANNA TALEWAD
   AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER
   R/O. M.B. PATEL NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR
   TAL & DIST : VIJAYAPUR-584 120
                                  ...PETITIONER

   (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)


   AND:

   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   THROUGH PSI,
   KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION,
   REPRESENTED BY
   ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   SPP OFFICE,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
   DHARWAD BENCH.
                               ...RESPONDENT

   (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
                             2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.7 ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
KUSHTAGI P.S. CRIME NO.268/2020 AND PCR
NO.100/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SS. 113, 114, 120(B), 109, 418, 420, 447,
465, 468, 471, 511 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

Accused 7 has filed this petition 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.292/2020 of Kushtagi Police Station

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 113, 114, 120(B), 109, 418, 420,

447, 465, 468, 471 and 511 read with Section

149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

the complainant has filed a private complaint

against accused Nos.1 to 7 stating that he is

the absolute owner and possessor of 08 guntas

of land in Survey No.8, Hissa No.6 of Kushtagi

village in Kushtagi Taluk in the year 1999. He

purchased the said 10 guntas for a total sale

consideration of Rs.5,000/- from accused No.1

under a registered sale deed. The complainant

applied for mutation and three persons filed

objections. Due to which, the R.R.T.

proceedings were taken up by the Tahasildar,

Kushtagi, in the year 1999. Thereafter, a suit

came to be filed by one Veerbasayya and

Malakajamma in O.S. No.165/1999 for partition

against accused Nos.1, 2 and others and the

original purchasers of the suit scheduled

property. The said suit came to be dismissed

on 20.04.2015. The Regular Appeal has been

filed challenging the judgment and decree in

R.A. No.98/2015 which also came to be

dismissed. Thereafter, writ petition was filed

in W.P. No.102875/2021 and the same is

pending. Thereafter, accused No.1 alienated

28 guntas of land in survey No.8/6 in favor of

the accused No.3. The said accused No.3 has

alienated 16 guntas of land out of 28 guntas in

favour of the accused No.4. Again accused

No.3 sold remaining 12 guntas in favour of

accused No.5. When the complainant verified

the Record of Rights, he came to know the

names of accused Nos.4 and 5 appeared in the

record of rights. Therefore, the complainant

filed a private complaint against the petitioner

and others. The said complaint came to be

referred to the Police for investigation and a

crime came to be registered in Kushtagi Police

Station. The Kushtagi Police, after

investigation, have filed charge sheet against

the petitioner and others for the offences

punishable under Sections 113, 114, 120(B),

109, 418, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471 and 511

read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner,

who has been shown as accused No.7 in the

charge sheet, apprehending his arrest has filed

Crl.Misc. No.585/2021 seeking anticipatory

bail. The same came to be rejected by the

learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Koppal, by order dated 21.10.2021. Therefore,

the petitioner is before this Court seeking

anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

4. It would be the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is innocent, he has not committed

any offence as alleged and he has been falsely

implicated in this case. When the petitioner

was working as Sub-Registrar, Kushtagi, while

discharging his duties, he has registered a Sale

Deed executed by accused No.1 in favour of

accused No.3. The allegations made in the

complaint and charge sheet are civil in nature.

The case of the complainant is based on the

documents. As charge sheet is filed, petitioner

is not required for custodial interrogation.

With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent-State

would contend that, a perusal of the charge

sheet material shows prima facie case against

the petitioner for the offences alleged against

him. The petitioner is absconding and if he

granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the

complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

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 Government Pleader

respondent-State, this Court has gone through

the FIR, complaint and charge sheet.

7. The accusation leveled against the

petitioner is that when he was working as Sub-

Registrar at Kushtagi, at that time while

executing the Sale Deed by accused No.1 in

favour of accused No.3, he did not read entire

judgment in O.S. No.165/1999, which was

given by accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 and he

carelessly violated the orders of the Court by

misusing the powers of Sub-Registrar. The

case of the prosecution is based on documents.

Investigation is over. Charge sheet has been

filed. The offence alleged against the

petitioner is not punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. There are no criminal

antecedents of the petitioner. The main

objection of the prosecution is that, if the

petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will

threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses. The said objections can be met

with by imposing stringent condition.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions of the counsel, this

Court is of the view that there are valid

grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to

certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of

the petitioner-accused No.7, he is ordered to

be released on bail in Crime No.292/2020 of

Kushtagi Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

  i. The       petitioners-accused           No.7     shall
    execute        personal         bond    for    sum     of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii. The petitioner-accused No.7 shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court within 4 weeks from this order and execute personal bonds and furnish surety.

iii. The petitioner-accused No.7 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iv. The     petitioner-accused            No.7      shall
   attend     the    Court        on    all   dates    of
   hearing,    unless        exempted,        and     co-

operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sbs*