Sri Kailash Khanna vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the statements of witnesses Vatsala Raghavendra and Adithya Raghavendra did not mention the petitioner's involvement in the property transaction. It was also observed that SBI, Hyderabad, in its criminal action and legal notice, did not name the petitioner. The presence of accused No. 2's photograph on the IDBI Bank account opening form suggested impersonation by accused No. 2. The Court found that the materials on record did not conclusively show the petitioner's misuse of original documents or handing over of Xerox copies to other accused. Given that the investigation was complete, charge sheet filed, and the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru, his presence could be secured for trial. The Court concluded that there was no impediment to granting bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, not committing further offenses, and marking attendance at the police station monthly until the trial concludes.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Kailash Khanna, sought bail in Criminal Petition No. 7196 of 2020, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC. The case originated from a complaint by Vijaya Raghavendra Mysore, who alleged that his family's immovable property was mortgaged by M/s Renlife Labs Private Limited to SBI, Hyderabad, using forged documents. The complainant also discovered his PAN and Aadhaar cards were forged for GST registration in the name of V.K. Pharma, and an IDBI Bank account was opened in his name. The petitioner was taken into custody on October 9, 2020, for alleged recoveries, but no recoveries were made, and he was subsequently placed in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of forgery and cheating? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the fabrication and forgery of documents. He pointed out that the SBI, Hyderabad, which initiated criminal action, did not name him as an accused in its complaint or legal notice. Witness statements from Vatsala Raghavendra and Aditya Raghavendra indicated that the complainant and his family intended to sell the property and had received an advance, with the petitioner's name not appearing in these statements. The petitioner also highlighted that the photograph on the IDBI Bank account opening form belonged to accused No. 2, suggesting impersonation by accused No. 2. He contended that his custody was unnecessary as no recoveries were made, and his involvement was not forthcoming. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, a real estate agent, collected original property documents from the complainant, made color Xerox copies, and handed them over to accused No. 2 and 3 for obtaining the loan from SBI, Hyderabad. The State asserted that the petitioner's involvement was significant and bail should not be granted.