GOPI S/O SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Gandhi Nagar P.S. Ballari in Crime No. 111/2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 477, 474, 381, 10B, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.

(2.) The complaint filed by the complainant before the respondent ' Police alleging that on 20.06.2017 at about 02:30 p.m. namely H.M. Shafee, the Accounts Shirestedar of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari received a telephonic message that one Gopi S/o. Subramani of Bengaluru had presented FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-, deposited in O.S. No. 95/2011 for encashment from the Manager of SBM Branch at Ballari. Immediately after receipt of an information, the complainant visited the bank and found that the person presented FD receipt dated 03.04.2012 in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- for encashment along with a letter/fake order of the Court. The official of the said Court intimated the same to the concerned Presiding Officer, as the concerned Presiding Officer wrote a letter to the Bank not to honour the FD in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- and withheld the said document which produced along with the said FD receipt for the purpose of encashment. On receipt of a complaint, the respondent ' Police registered a case in Crime No. 111/2017 for the aforesaid alleged offences. Thereafter, proceeded with the case for investigation. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 381, 120(B), 511 read with 34 of IPC.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ' accused No. 2 and the learned HCGP for the respondent ' State.