MAHADEVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by petitioner -accused No. 1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent -police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 181, 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent -police station Crime No. 150/2013. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant was working as stone cutter and also mining at Chitradurga. Since he was expert in handling stone, people used to invite and take his advise. He was constrained to stay at Bandihalli village situate at Kollegal taluk 30 years prior since one Khan had brought him to the village. In 1988 he purchased a land measuring 4 acres 24 guntas from Mallanna for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/ - and got it registered before the Sub -Registrar and on account of ill -health, he stayed at Chitradurga. It is further alleged that recently he came to Bandihalli village and learnt that said land was being sold to someone else and after enquiry in sub -registrar's office, he came to know that accused No. 2 B. Ramakrishna has got the said property registered from accused No. 1. In 2005 accused No. 6 Vinayashekar got sale deed in his favour. Subsequently, the complainant learnt that his property was sold in favour of accused No. 2 by accused No. 1. The petitioner herein has signed as witness to the first sale transaction and hence, the complainant has sought for taking legal action against the accused person. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -accused No. 1 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

(3.) AS against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the present petitioner on the false representation that he himself is the owner of the land has sold the property and thereby, he has cheated the owner of the property and committed the alleged offence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. He has also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the Investigating Officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses. Hence, submitted to reject the bail application.