Deelipkumar M S/O. ...

vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014

Karnataka High Court

Deelipkumar M S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014
Author: 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 M
S/O. MALLIKARJUNAYYA
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
R/O. DODDACHUNCHANAHALLI,
NELAM ANGAL, BANGALORE
NOW AT JAMMANAKATTI,
PO: KERUR TQ: BADAMI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P N HOSAMANE, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BADAMI POLICE STATION
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF

CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS RELEASING HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN BADAMI POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.171/2013
REGISTERED
FOR
THE
OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468 & 471
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/

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

OF IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.100224/2014
BETWEEN
KRISHNAPPA D DORESWAMY
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT UTTUR
TQ: MUDHOL,
R/O. AK COLONY UPPAR BEEDI
PAVAGAD, TUMKUR.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P N HOSAMANE, ADV.)

AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MUDHOL POLICE STATION
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.

... RESPONDENT

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

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS RELEASING HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN MUDHOL POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.206/2013
REGISTERED
FOR
THE
OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468 & 471
OF 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 village
accountant at different places. During the year 2008-09, it is alleged that with a view to obtain
Government job by defrauding the Government, the petitioners have created a relevant Marks Card
and by producing the marks card of II PUC, and obtained the appointment to the post of Village
Accountant.
2. On these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged before the jurisdictional police station, for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

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

3. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings, the petitioners approached for grant of
anticipatory 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 learned
Sessions 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 if
prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the department can initiate a departmental
enquiry, 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 that
ground, the bail was granted to the accused persons in other case, particularly, in Crime
No.171/2013."
6. The same principles ought to have been applied to these cases also by the leaned same Sessions
Judge. I do not know the reason why the learned Session Judge has taken a different view so far as
these petitioners are concerned. It is fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that there
should 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 to
reject the petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Because of the simple reason, the petitioners are
Government 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 willing
to offer substantial surety for their appearance and abide by conditions. Therefore, petitioners
entitled 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 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to the
following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves with a copy of this order before the
Investigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order
and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer as the case may be.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses and he
should assist the police in further investigation, if any, and for any interrogation in
this regard.
iii) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as when
required for the purpose of further investigation, interrogation etc.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127658302/

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

iv) They shall mark their attendance once on every alternate Sunday before the
Investigating 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 the
jurisdictional Court, till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/JUDGE Vmb

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