1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUiT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED This THE 22> DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10198/2011 BETWEEN: Mainuddin, SI Abduirebman Sonar, Age: 58 years, 0cc: Private Service, Rio. Near old A.P.M.C., Bagalkot. . . .Petitioner (By Shri. S.J.Nirmanik, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka. By S.P.P. High Court ofKarnataka, Through Bilagi Police Station. . . .Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant bail to the petitioner in Bilagi P.S. Crime No.278/2010 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.. Bilagi for the offences. punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: S ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.278/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code, along with six other accused persons. It is alleged that the Bilagi Police Authorities, had arrested the petitioner on 18.12.201() and produced him before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Bilagi. It is alleged that the petitioner along with six others, had created and concocted revenue records and residential proofs, to obtain a huge loan from the Corporation Bank in collusion with the Manager of the said bank without sanction of the concerned Field Officer. It was further alleged that the Bank Manager had permitted one of the accused to open an account by impersonation and sanctioned loan without verification of the records and Rs.3,00,000/- sanctioned, which was misused by the accused. The only allegation against the petitioner, 13 according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had introduced accused No.6, Noorsab Rakkasagi. as Mallappa Tabbanna Pujari and therefore, accused No.6 was impersonating Pujari while the petitioner himself was impersonating one Vithal Sangappa Walikar and therefore, helped him to open a Savings Bank Account According to the allegation, it has further enabled accused No.6 to obtain the loan of a huge amount ofmoney, ofwhich he has defaulted. On the alleged discovery of the fraud perpetrated the complaint has been brought after a period of four years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that these are the allegations in the complaint, and he would deny his participation at any point of time and since the alleged offences which are punishable under the pro isions of the Indian Penal Code would not apply to the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he had introduced one Noorsab Rakkasagi. Therefore, the seriousness ofthe allegation against the petitioner would get watered down and hence, he would be entitled for enlargement on bail, at this point of time S 4 since actual inolvernent of the petitioner is the subject matter of the trial and on a prima facie finding it does not bring home the allegation against the accused, in this vein, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further plead that the petitioner comes from a humble background and he is a poor man with a large family to maintain and he being incarcerated his life and that of others would be at stake and therefore, seeks enlargement on bail. 4. The learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections that in the course of investigation, the complainant has found that the present petitioner had enabled one other to impersonate the original owner of the land and had enabled the fraud to be committed. The petitioner himself had impersonated one other and therefore, a prima facie case has made out against the present petitioner. He would further point out that the introduction of the accused No.6 to the bank has been the genesis of the perpetration of the fraud and therefore, it cannot be said that the role played by the petitioner, if he was indeed a person who had introduced accused No.6, would establish the common intention. Therefore, he xou1d submit that there is no ground made out for enlargement on bail and that the Court below has rightly rejected his application for bail. 5. There is substance in the contention of the learned Go\ernment Pleader at this point of’ time there is no ground made out for enlargement on bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd! IUDGE Rsh