BASAVARAJ GAVIYAPPA INDI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a successive petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 Basavaraj Gaviyappa Indi under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.35/2019 of Mulagund Police Station, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 471, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. He has filed this petition seeking to be released on anticipatory bail.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel Shri K.L. Patil for the petitioner - Accused No.2 and the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayath, Mulagund against the present petitioner and another person named V.G. Habib alleging that in respect of regularization of one Shri M.P. Hirehanamanthagouda, the petitioner and V.G. Habib had created forged documents and got the services of the said Junior Engineer regularized and hence, had sought for action against the petitioner and V.G. Habib. Acting on the said complaint, the present petitioner who was working as a Sump Operator in Mulagund Municipality was placed under suspension and direction was issued to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Against the said suspension order, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.102410-11/2015 before this Court, wherein this court, by order dated 13.04.2015 has granted an interim order of stay of the order of suspension. Now, it is stated that investigation has commenced in respect of the complaint registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.35/2019. Hence, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, which application in Crl.Misc.No.243/2019 came to be dismissed by order dated 12.06.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this court in Crl.P.No.101467/2019, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.08.2018. A further application filed before the Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail also came to be dismissed by order dated 15.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner has come up again before this court seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.