Shivakumar V vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held in the affirmative, finding the petitioner entitled to bail. While acknowledging the serious allegations of fake document creation, inducement for business, non-payment of GST, and destruction of documents, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed. The Court reasoned that continued detention would infringe upon the petitioner's right to life and liberty. Therefore, the petitioner was granted bail, subject to conditions designed to address the State's apprehension of absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening witnesses. These conditions include not committing similar offences, not tampering with witnesses, and appearing in court as required. The Trial Court was also directed to verify the petitioner's and sureties' addresses and document authenticity.

Facts

The petitioner, Shivakumar.V, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.117/2019 registered at Kothanur Police Station, Bengaluru. The case, pending as C.C.No.21240/2021 before the IV ACMM, Bengaluru, involves alleged offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, and 201 of the IPC. The informant alleged that the petitioner induced him to start a scrap business, collected his and his father's documents, obtained signatures, concocted a rent agreement, conducted the business without paying GST, and subsequently destroyed documents. The petitioner was apprehended on August 2, 2021, and has been in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and that there is no material to connect him to the allegations. He argued that he could not have conducted business using fake documents without the informant's knowledge. With the investigation complete and charge sheet filed, his continued detention infringes upon his right to life and liberty. He is a permanent resident and willing to abide by any conditions. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail petition, highlighting the serious allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that a charge sheet has been filed after custodial interrogation. The State argued that, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.