RAVEESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.19 under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.157/2022 registered by Gubbi Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 408, 409, 420, 465, 468 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ').

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the Tahsildar Grade-2, Gubbi Town, Tumakuru has filed a complaint to the Police on 2/7/2022 alleging that accused No.1-Sathish Kumar said to be SDA in the Revenue Department was worked as Record Keeper and about one week prior to lodging of the complaint, when the record room documents were verified for the year between 1995 to 2000, there was some entries in the RTC which were hand written unauthorized without any order of the Tahsildar or Deputy Commissioner and it was also found that some Mutation Register Extract was also been tampered. Therefore, requested to take action against accused No.1-Sathish Kumar. During the investigation, it was revealed that this petitioner received Rs.1,43,500.00 from accused No.2-Kariyanna and asked accused No.16- Prakash who is the Sec. Officer to send the file pertaining to the Survey No.95 of the Doddaguni Village after signature of the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner by Muddam through accused No.2, thereby, this petitioner is also involved in commission of offence for creating the documents and fabricating the revenue records in order to get the benefit by the accused persons by getting the lands, thereby, they trying to alienate the land of the State to the private persons. The petitioner is said to be working as Sheristedar. During the pendency of the investigation, he has approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 29/9/2022. Subsequently, the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet by producing the documents, bank statements showing the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence, fabricating the revenue records by receiving money from accused No.2-Kariyanna. The petitioner after withdrawing the anticipatory bail petition before this Court, once again, approached the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.