Karnataka High CourtDeelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.100223/2014

C/W 100224/2014

IN CRL.P. NO.100223/2014

BETWEEN

DEELIPKUMAR MS/O. MALLIKARJUNAYYAAGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANTR/O. DODDACHUNCHANAHALLI,NELAM ANGAL, BANGALORENOW AT JAMMANAKATTI,PO: KERUR TQ: BADAMI. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P N HOSAMANE, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKABY BADAMI POLICE STATIONR/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP) 2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OFCR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THEPETITIONERS RELEASING HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OFHIS ARREST IN BADAMI POLICE STATION CRIMENO.171/2013 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCESPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468 & 471

Deelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/ 1

OF IPC.

IN CRL.P. NO.100224/2014

BETWEEN

KRISHNAPPA D DORESWAMYAGE: 28 YEARS,OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT UTTURTQ: MUDHOL,R/O. AK COLONY UPPAR BEEDIPAVAGAD, TUMKUR. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P N HOSAMANE, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKABY MUDHOL POLICE STATIONR/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OFCR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THEPETITIONERS RELEASING HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OFHIS ARREST IN MUDHOL POLICE STATION CRIMENO.206/2013 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCESPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468 & 471OF IPC. 3

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The brief allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners are serving as a villageaccountant at different places. During the year 2008-09, it is alleged that with a view to obtainGovernment job by defrauding the Government, the petitioners have created a relevant Marks Cardand by producing the marks card of II PUC, and obtained the appointment to the post of VillageAccountant.

2. On these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged before the jurisdictional police station, forthe offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Deelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/ 2

3. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings, the petitioners approached for grant ofanticipatory bail before the learned Session Judge, Bagalkot. Their petition came to be rejected.

4. The learned Counsel brought to my notice that in similar facts and circumstances, the learnedSessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail, in Criminal Mis. No.570/2013.

5. I have carefully perused the said order. The learned Sessions Judge has observed "that even ifprima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the department can initiate a departmentalenquiry, but, there is no material before the Court so show that it has proceeded in that direction.On the other hand, the petitioners were allowed to discharge their duties for so many years. On thatground, the bail was granted to the accused persons in other case, particularly, in CrimeNo.171/2013."

6. The same principles ought to have been applied to these cases also by the leaned same SessionsJudge. I do not know the reason why the learned Session Judge has taken a different view so far asthese petitioners are concerned. It is fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that thereshould not be any discrimination amongst the persons, against whom the criminal cases are lodged,who stand on the same footing.

7. Under the above said circumstances, in these cases also, I do not find any strong to reasons toreject the petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Because of the simple reason, the petitioners areGovernment Servants and there is no chance of flying away from justice.

8. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are ready and willingto offer substantial surety for their appearance and abide by conditions. Therefore, petitionersentitled to be enlarged on bail.

9. Hence, the following order is passed:-

ORDER The petitions filed by the petitioners in the above said two cases under Section 438 ofCr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to thefollowing conditions:

i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves with a copy of this order before theInvestigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this orderand execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for thelikesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer as the case may be.

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses and heshould assist the police in further investigation, if any, and for any interrogation inthis regard.

iii) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as whenrequired for the purpose of further investigation, interrogation etc.

Deelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/ 3

iv) They shall mark their attendance once on every alternate Sunday before theInvestigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed,whichever is earlier.

v) The petitioners shall not leave their work place, without prior permission of thejurisdictional Court, till the charge sheet is filed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vmb

Deelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/ 4