IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD Dated the I 9 day of April 2011 :BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN CRIMIN?L PETITION No.10555,’_2011 BETWEEN: 1. Subhash, S/o Malinath Kusnale, Age: 61 years, 0cc: Agriculture. R/o Ugar Khurdh, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. 2. Dr. Shantgouda. S/o Babugouda Patil, Age: 80 years. 0cc: Retired Medical Practitioner. R/o Shedbal. Athani Taluk. Belgaum District. Petitioners (By Sri M.B.Gundawade, Advocate,> AND: The State of Karnataka. rept. by State Public Prosecutor. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench. Dharawad. through Kagaxvada Police, Athani Taluk. Respondent (By Sri Anand K.Navalgimath. Advocate.> 2 Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crime No. 170/20 10 registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the “P.C. This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader in respect of the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners. 2. The complaint allegations of one Annasab Darappa Gani, in short, are that, the society of which the present petitioners are the Chairman and Member respectively had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- donation from the daughter-in-law of the complainant to give her a permanent post in the institution as a teacher and as the post of the complainant’s daughter-in-law was not confirmed and she was not regularized in service, the complainant mentioned about the demand of donation 3 by the institution. The petitioners. therefore, apprehend their arrest and hence they seek anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners are not forthcoming in the complaint and moreover, the daughter-in-law of the complainant could not be regularized as the Government did not approve her candidature and even the writ petition filed by the daughter-in-law of the complainant came to be dismissed in W.P.No. 67023/2009. As such. the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Government Pleader. hoi ever, supported the order passed by the trial court rejecting the anticipator3 bail application of the petitioners. 5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the fact that in the complaint no such allegations are made against the petitioners. yet. they being the Chairman and Member respectively of the educational institution concerned, the apprehension of the 4— 4 petitioners. therefore, cannot be said to he ilhfounded. As such. in m vie, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail 6. Hence. I pass the following order: The petition is allowed and the petitioners he released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime o. 170/20 10 of Kaga\vada Police Station on their executing a personal bond for Rs.50.000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and they shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall appear before the 1.0. as and when they are called upon to do so. Sd/ JUDGE eke/