IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.12018/2010 BETWEEN: Shivanand, 5/0. Basappa Appaji Age: 40 years, 0cc: Business R/o. Ilkal, Tq: Hunugund PETITIONER (By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Through Ilkal Police Station R/by it’s State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Circuit Bench, Dharwad. RESPONDENT (By Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Ilkal Police Station Crime No. 110/2008 for the offences punishable u/s 419 and 420 R/w 34 of IPC. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are as follows: It is stated that on 14.06.2008 one Smt. Basawwa W/o. Veerappa Warikal, Rio. Hireshingangutti, Tq: Hunugund of Bagalkot District had alleged that the land bearing RS No.46/2/2 measuring 4 acres belongs to her and she is in possession of the same. It was contended that the petitioner herein had, in collusion with two others, raised a loan on the security of the said property misrepresenting that the property belonged to the said accused. The complainant on learning of the creation of such security with the Co-operative Society had lodged the complaint. The police had registered a case against the petitioner as well as others for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC. It is claimed that though the petitioner is very much available at the address given in the petition, there was no action taken against the petitioner insofar as the allegations are concerned and now it is strongly apprehended that the petitioner would be arrested and therefore, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot seeking anticipatory bail which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had stood as surety for the transaction and since it was demonstrated that the transaction was based on misrepresentation as to the ownership of the property and since the petitioner was likely to interfere with the prosecution witnesses, the court opined that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would now contend that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that this Court may impose and there was never any impediment caused by the petitioner to the investigation and he is ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Authority as and when required. He further submits that the petitioner was only a surety to the loan transaction and that the alleged illegality urged against the principal debtor in making a 4 misrepresentation is not to his knowledge and therefore, he would submit that the petitioner would be absolved of alleged offences and seeks anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions this Court may impose. 4. Having regard to the categorical statement of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Authority as and when necessary, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following terms and conditions. 1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 3. The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Authority as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 4. The petitioner shall not interfere with the trial, threaten or induce any witnesses for the prosecution. 5. The petitioner shall take steps to approach the Court below for regular bail within a period of eight weeks from today. Accordingly the petition is allowed subject to the above conditions. Sd! JUDGE gab/ -