H.P. Sandesh, J
1. This petition is filed under Section 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.239/2015 registered by the Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 420, 323, 506 read with
Section 149 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 on 04.05.2015, the complainant appeared before the police and lodged the complaint stating that he had
purchased the property bearing Sy.Nos.52, 53, 56, 57, 58 and 59 in total 40 acres from one Sri Patel Muniyappa in the year 1981 through GPA and
also got the sale deed on 09.08.1992 through the Court decree and he is cultivating the land standing in his name. Out of that, he had formed the layout
and sold the sites in 25 acres in total 500 sites and remaining 15 acres is in his possession, but these petitioners have created documents in the year
2015 with an intention to cheat the complainant and indulged in creation of the documents forging the signature and got the documents registered in
Rajajinagar Sub-Registrar office stating that they have purchased the property in the year 1947 itself and trespassed the land and assaulted the coolie
workers, who were working for the construction of the Temple. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter
and filed the charge-sheet.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that these petitioners are innocent and they have not indulged in creation of any
documents and the petitioners are the original owners of the property in question and there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the title
is concerned and in order to over come the said civil dispute, the complainant has given the criminal colour to the civil dispute and hence the petitioners
are entitled for bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that based on the complaint, case has
been registered, investigation has been conducted, charge-sheet has been filed and the summons was issued and when the same was not served,
NBW was issued and the petitioners have absconded. Hence, the Court has issued the proclamation against the petitioners and the proclaimed
offenders are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court rejected the bail petition on the ground that
the proclaimed offenders are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also
on perusal of the material on record, particularly the order sheet which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it discloses that
the charge-sheet was filed on 19.11.2019 and the Trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 420, 323, 506 read with 149 of IPC and issued the NBW against them since in the charge-sheet it is shown as they have
absconded. The learned counsel submits that some of the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail despite proclamation has been
issued. The learned counsel submits that though the charge-sheet was filed in 2019, due to Corona, the petitioners could not appear before the Court
and proclamation was issued on 02.09.2021. The learned counsel does not dispute the fact that proclamation has been issued against accused Nos.1 to
8. The complaint was given in the year 2015 and almost three years was taken for investigation of the matter and filing of the charge-sheet and
invoked the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471, 323 and 506 of IPC and the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2019 itself and
proclamation was issued in 2021 when the NBW issued against the petitioner were not executed. When such being the factual aspects of the case
and when these petitioners are the proclaimed offenders, the petitioners cannot seek the relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and they can approach the
Trial Court by making necessary application for recalling of the warrant before the Trial Court.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
