LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-11

DORATHY SHEELA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On March 05, 2022
Dorathy Sheela Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.310/2021 registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Ss. 381, 403, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 503 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

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

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are the close relatives of late Smt.Louisa G Manohari, the Philanthropist. She had achieved remarkable feet in the field of education by starting schools right from LKG to 10th Standard. The late said Louisa G Manohari had acquired the immovable properties and those properties were her self acquired properties. The complainant is the son of Melchoir, the eldest son of J.A.Gabriel. The late Louisa G Manohari started education in the year 1965 and she also acquired some properties and later on it was converted into a Trust in the year 1981. Petitioner No.8 is well acquainted with late Louisa G Manohari from the day one of the starting the institution. And the said late Louisa G Manohari had approached petitioner No.8 to Will her properties and accordingly, in the year 2018, Will was executed and petitioner No.8 had assisted her as an executant of the six Wills. The sad late Louisa G Manohari demised on 22/6/2020 and some of them who have not received any property had indulged in filing the private complaint and the present complaint was also among one and there were two other private complaints and the police have registered the case based on the private complaints wherein an allegation was made that the petitioners herein have indulged in creation of documents and forged the signatures of late Louisa G Manohari at the instance of petitioner Nos.8 and 9 and hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail petition since the bail petition filed before the Sessions Judge was rejected.