V Srinivasa vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6588 Kant

                           1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5336 OF 2023

BETWEEN

V SRINIVASA
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O 16TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN, WARD NO.2,
NEAR RAMALINGAM HOUSE,
GANGHI NAGARA
KOLAR - 563 101
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIREESHA J.T., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GULPET P S
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                         ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2022 OF GULPET P.S., KOLAR DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 465,
468, 471, 120(B), 420, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT AT KOLAR.
                             2


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.09.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

This successive anticipatory bail petition is filed by

the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C

for granting anticipatory bail in C.C.No.684/2022 arising

out of Crime No.62/2022 of Gulpet Police Station, Kolar

District and charge sheeted for the offences punishable

under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 201,

read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of one Nagaraj, Tahsildar of Kolar Taluk filed on

23.6.2022, alleging that he has received a file pertaining

to the land in Sy.No.127 measuring 3 acre and 23 guntas

situated at Alahalli village Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk

which is locked land came for sanction in favour of

Sunlarge Properties Ltd.,property belonging to the accused

No.7, with the sanction order of the Deputy Commissioner,

Kolar. On verification of the order, the complainant had

doubt about the order and on confirmation with the Deputy

Commissioner Office, it was found fake. After registering

complaint, the police arrested one of the accused persons

and on interrogation it was revealed this petitioner being

the Revenue Inspector as per the submission report made

by local inspection for clearing the file, for grant of locked

land to the accused No.7 (B.Sudhakara Pai, Director,

Sunlarge Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru). This petitioner

is absconding from the beginning, he is accused No.3 in

the FIR and accused No.1 in the charge sheet. He has

moved anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.6953/2022 & connected

case, which came to be dismissed on 16.8.2022 by this

court, on the ground that he is required for custodial

interrogation. After rejection of the bail petition, once

again the petitioner is before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the investigation is completed charge sheet

has been filed. The FSL report reveals there is no forgery

of the signature of this petitioner. The co-accused persons

are granted bail by the High Court. The present petitioner

is ready to abide by any conditions, hence prayed for

granting anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected that

he is required for custodial interrogation. The charge

sheet was filed against other accused persons by showing

this petitioner as absconding. He is a Revenue Inspector

and the main accused who destroyed the original file and

prepared the fake inspection report, by suppressing the

earlier report and submitted for approval. It is also alleged

in the charge sheet that he has prepared the Mahazar by

suppressing all the material facts and placed for clearing

the file. He himself endorsed the file for sending the file to

the Tahsildar for approval. Therefore, his presence is

necessary for filing additional charge sheet during

interrogation, his specimen signature is required to be

obtained for getting expert report but he is absconding

since more than one year, inspite of rejection of earlier

petition. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

Learned HCGP also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in criminal appeal arising out of

SLP (Crl.) No.213/2021 in case of G.R.Ananda Babu V/s

The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

6. Upon hearing arguments, perused the records,

this court while considering the earlier bail petition, by way

of detailed order, had rejected the bail petition. It is seen

from the record, this petitioner was Revenue Inspector

who prepared the Spot Mahazar/inspection report and

submitted the Mahazar, along with the endorsement for

clearing the file and sending the same for approval of

Tahsildar. It is also seen from the charge sheet record

that the Deputy Commissioner's signature was forged by

the accused persons in order to knock out the locked land

of the Government worth more than Rs.6 crores. This

petitioner played very vital role in preparing the

panchanama by destroying the earlier panchanama and

cleared the file for order of the Tahsildar by forging the

signature of the Deputy Commissioner and prepared the

sanction order in the name of the Deputy commissioner,

which cannot be taken as lightly and this Court had

rejected the anticipatory bail petition one year back,

inspite of the same, this petitioner being Government

official absconding for more than one year. The police are

also not able to trace the accused for the purpose of arrest

and to get the specimen signature of the accused and

interrogating him regarding forging the signature of the

Deputy Commissioner and fabricating the order of the

Deputy Commissioner. This petitioner is required for

custodial interrogation. Inspite of rejecting his bail

petition, he is still absconding for last one year and he has

come before this court with the same grounds without any

fresh grounds or fresh materials. The police also

mentioned in the charge sheet that after arresting this

petitioner and interrogation, they have filed additional

charge sheet in respect of forgery and the false report.

Such being the case, I am of the view the petitioner has

not made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory

bail, in this successive bail petition. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in G.R.Anand Babu's case stated supra has held as

under:

"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No.

2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

To observe sobriety, we refrain from making any further observation, except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to respondent No. 2 and affect the trial against him"

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had

cancelled the anticipatory bail and allowed the police to

take the accused in the custody for the purpose of

interrogation.

7. Therefore in my view, though the offence is

triable by Magistrate, but it is a very serious offence

committed by the accused for forging the Deputy

Commissioner's signature and fabricating the Mahazar for

knocking out the landlocked property of the Government

for the sanction of the accused No.7.

Therefore, the successive anticipatory bail petition

filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, V.Srinivasa, is hereby

dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender and seek

regular bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV