BHAURAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused No.10 under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Ss. 420 , 464 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ', for brevity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 said to have created General Power of Attorney (for short 'G.P.A.') of the complainant and his brother on 1/12/2020, forged documents like pan card, aadhar card etc., impersonated the complainant and his brother and created sale deed in his own name. It is alleged that on 2/11/2021 accused No.1 again forged the sale deed and documents, altered the survey number as 30/6 from 30/1 and created bogus sale deed in favor of accused No.2- Shrikant Tumari to which accused Nos.4 and 5 are the witnesses. On 14/12/2021 accused No.2 got the sale deed cancelled. Pammar-accused No.3, accused Nos.4 and 6 are the witnesses to the sale deed. On 16/4/2022 accused No.1 sold another piece of land to Mahadev Somappa Pammar (accused No.3) to which accused Nos.4 and 7 are the witnesses. With regard to property belonging to the friend of the complainant, accused No.1 has created bogus sale deed in favor of himself on 1/12/2020 and accused Nos.10, 11 and 12 are the witnesses. On 22/6/2021 accused No.1 sold the property of Arun Kamat to accused Nos.8 and 9 Basavaraj Avarolli and Raju Katyayannavar and executed G.P.A. in favour of accused No.1 again to sell the said land. Thereafter, accused No.1 sold the said property to accused No.16 Geeta Chindi in the presence of accused Nos.14 and 15. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 10 in the F.I.R apprehending his arrest has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1144/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dtd. 19/8/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.