J B SHANTHAKUMAR Vs. STATE BY YAGATI POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused No. 3 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 120A, 419, 420, 463, 464, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 17/2012. The case in brief as per the averments in the complaint are, that the Manager of Corporation Bank, Yadati Branch, Kadur Taluk filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that accused No. 1 Ramesh filed an application for grant of loan so as to purchase Tractor-Trailer and accessories by impersonating as Samadappa, who died on 25.11.2004. Accused No. 1 Ramesh executed loan agreement and other documents by affixing the forged thumb impression as L.T.M. of Samadappa. Similarly accused No. 2 Devarajappa signed on the mortgage deed by impersonating as Basappa being his father, who died about 4 years back. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have executed necessary document in favour of the complainant bank in respect of Sy. No. 182/p1 belonging to deceased Basappa and Sy. No. 274 belonging to Samadappa, who was no more. The petitioner accused No. 3 Shanthakumar identified the signature of accused Nos. 1 and 2 as the signature of (1) Samadappa and (2) Basappa and cheated to the Corporation Bank. On the basis of this complaint the case has been registered against the petitioner and two others.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent State. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that accused No. 2 has been already granted with bail by the Sessions Judge Court at Chickmagalur. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Court in respect of the accused No. 2. Perusing the averments made in the complaint the allegation as against the present petitioner is that he identified the signature of Samadappa and Basappa, but the prosecution contended that there is impersonation in the case and there is a cheating on the bank. Looking to the nature of the offences alleged they are all triable by the court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under the similar allegations accused No. 2 is already granted with bail. On the ground of parity also the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail the petitioner has made out a case regarding apprehension of his arrest at the hands of respondent police. He is contended that he has not at all committed the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120A, 419, 420, 463, 464, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 17/2012, subject to the following conditions: