IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10223/2011 C/w. CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.10224/2011 & 10225/2011 BETWEEN: K. Krishnamohan, S/o. Laxmanmurthy Age: 38 years, 0cc: Land Developers R/o. Vinavaknagar, 8th Cross Bagalkot PETITIONER (COMMON) (By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka Represented by its S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Dharwad (through Bilagi Police Station, Bilagi) RESPONDENT (COMMON) (By Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10223/2011 IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.279/2010 IN RESPECT OF THE ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10224/2011 IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.278/2010 IN RESPECT OF THE ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10225/2011 IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.277/2010 IN RESPECT OF THE ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMMON ORDER All these petitions are by the same accused namely, Krishnamohan and the complaint allegations are also more or less identical and therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the complaint is lodged by one Dundappa Hanchinamani stating that the accused persons mentioned in the complaint numbering 6 have cheated the bank pretending to be the owners of the land, when the loan sought by them, but actually the land owners are different persons and not the accused. The accused therefore created documents to project themselves as owners of the land and thus took loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of each transaction. Based on the complaint so lodged by Dundappa, case was registered against the petitioner and others in different crime numbers in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Submission of the petitioner’s Counsel is that other accused persons, namely accused Nos.1 and 5 have been released on bail and this petitioner is not 4 involved in the commission of the alleged offences, but his name is also included in the FIR. 4. The prosecution opposes the grant of bail by referring to the objections filed by it and it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State that, against this petitioner and others, cases have been registered in Crime Nos.277/ 10, 278/10 and 279/10 and the total amount of loan sanctioned was Rs.9,O0,000/ and this petitioner is said to have colluded with other accused persons and duped the bank. 5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the nature of the complaint that is lodged and some of the accused having been released on bail, this petitioner, who is in custody also can be released on bail imposing conditions to safeguard the prosecution interest. 5 6. In the result, all the three petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. 2. He shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not give threat to the witnesses in any manner. 3. He shall mark attendance before the jurisdictional police station on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. 4. He shall not involve himself in like offences in future. 5. He shall not leave the place without the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. If any of the bail conditions are violated, bail will be cancelled at the request of the prosecution. Sd/ JUDGE gab/-