- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100381 OF 2025 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100469 OF 2025 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] IN CRL.P NO.100381/2025: BETWEEN: MANOHAR S/O. K. KULLAYAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, ARO, CITY CORPORATION, ZONAL-1, BELLARY, R/O. H. NO.17, W. NO.16, 1ST CROSS, SRIRAMPURA COLONY, BELLARY. … PETITIONER (BY SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PSI, GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C. (482 OF BNSS, 2023), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.11 15:07:55 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 CRIME NO.135/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 408, 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420, R/W. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) J.M.F.C COURT BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY. IN CRL.P NO.100469/2025: BETWEEN: 1. K. DODDA BASAPPA S/O. K. CHENNABASAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. BILL COLLECTOR, R/O. WARD NO.3, SANGANAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BELLARY-583101. 2. SURESHA V. S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA V., AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.37, WARD NO.9, ANDRAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BELLARY. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.P.VADAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I. GANDHINAGAR, TQ. AND DIST. BELLARY, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P., HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST AND NECESSARY DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL FOR THE CASE REGISTERED IN CRIME NO. 135/2024 DATED 12.12.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 408, 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC, BY GANDHINAGAR P.S., BELLARY ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. COURT, BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Crl.P.no.100381/2025 is filed by accused no.1, while, Crl.P.no.100469/2025 is filed by accused no.3 and 4. They are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.135/2024 of Gandhinagar Police Station Ballari for offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). 2. Sri VM Sheelvant, learned counsel for accused no.1 submitted, accused no.1 was working as Assistant Revenue Officer in Ballari City Corporation since five years without any blemish and was law abiding citizen and permanent resident of Ballari. Such being case, based on a false complaint registered, he was apprehending arrest as stated above. It was submitted, case of prosecution even on basis of complaint was that accused no.1 had measured 35 flats at Sai Sukruti Home Apartment on Ananthapur Road, Ward no.18, Ballari Corporation and issued self-assessment forms. It was submitted, said tax was to be remitted by assessee at Ballari - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 One Centre. Thereafter, asssessee had approached Ballari One Centre, wherein accused no.2 suggested that property tax be paid in cash and amount was paid in cash. But receipts issued were later found by Chief Accounts Officer to be fake and amount of property tax collected was not remitted to coffers of Corporation. 3. It was submitted, accused no.1 being Assistant Revenue Officer, had no role insofar as collection of tax was concerned. As required, he had assessed properties and issued self-assessment forms. Either in complaint or in FIR, any overt- act was mentioned insofar as accused no.1. It was further submitted, immediately after detection of irregularity, accused no.4 had remitted amount. Therefore, there was no financial loss caused. It was further submitted, there was delay of eight months in filing complaint. On above grounds sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Sri VP Vadavi, learned counsel for accused no.3 and 4 submitted, accused no.3 was in service of Ballari Corporation for more than five years without any antecedents and a permanent resident of Ballari. Likewise accused no.4 was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 though Outsourced Employee was permanent resident of Ballari without any criminal antecedents. They were apprehending arrest in pursuance of false complaint registered against them. As per complaint, suggestion for remission of property tax in cash was by accused no.2 and not by accused no.3 or 4. After remission of amount by apartment owner. Accused no.2 had asked accused no.4 to retain amount. Hence accused no.4 was innocent. And immediately after detection of irregularity and as per instructions of Chief Accounts Officer, accused no.4 had remitted entire amount and there was no financial loss caused. It was submitted, this would indicate that there was no intention to misappropriate. In complaint, there were no overt- acts insofar as accused no.3 and 4 are concerned and they were arraigned without any basis. On above grounds sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petitions. It was submitted, accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It was submitted, since offence was collection of receipt of property tax amount and issuance of fake receipt, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 nature of offences were quite serious and investigation was underway. It was submitted, possibility of similar offences having been committed was very high and therefore custodial interrogation was necessary. Moreover offences were alleged to be committed by accused with common intention. Therefore ground that there were no specific overt-acts against each of them would not be tenable. It was further submitted, merely on ground that tax amount was remitted would not absolve or compound offence. On above grounds sought dismissal of petitions. 6. Heard learned counsel. 7. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?” 8. From above, apprehension of petitioners about imminent arrest is based on registration of Crime no.135/2024 (supra) for non-bailable offences. Insofar as accused no.1 and 3 only overt-acts in complaint would be that they went for assessment of property tax payable. From material available upto this stage, there does not appear to be allegation about - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 any irregularity insofar as assessment of property tax. Moreover, remission of property tax is at Ballari One Centre, where accused no.2 prompted assessee to pay it in cash and assessee handed over amount along with self-assessment forms to accused no.2. 9. As per complaint, on ground that there was some network issue, accused no.2 handed over amount to accused no.4. Complaint does not mention any clear allegations or role of accused no.1, 3 and 4 in issuance of fake receipts except accused no.4 who had retained to amount with him until irregularity was noted by Chief Accounts Officer. From above since matter is under investigation on prima facie consideration as there are no specific incriminating material insofar as accused no.1 and 3 are concerned, except insofar as accused no.4 about withholding of money is alleged. At same time as concerns of prosecution could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions, point for consideration is answered in affirmative insofar as accused no.1 and 3 and in negative insofar as accused no.4. Consequently, following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 ORDER Criminal Petition no.100381/2025 is allowed, subject to conditions stated below. In Criminal Petition no.100469/2025, bail petition of accused no.4 is rejected, bail petition of accused no.3 is allowed, subject to following conditions: It is ordered that petitioners/accused no.1 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of their arrest in Crime no.135/2024 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari for offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) Accused no.1 and 3 shall individually appear before Investigating Officer, within 15 days from date of this order and each of them shall execute personal bonds for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum. b) They shall mark their attendance before Investigating Officer between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm on every alternate Sunday, until filing of charge sheet. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2569 CRL.P No. 100381 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100469 of 2025 c) They shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. d) They shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. e) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) They shall inform change of residence forthwith to Investigating Officer. g) It is clarified that all observations herein would be prima facie, for purposes of this order only. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10