Mahadevamma vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner--accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences u/s 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(9) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered by the respondent police in Crime No. 6/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner--accused No. 1 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent--State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner--accused No. 1 during the course of his argument submitted that the petitioner--accused No. 1 never impersonated the complainant before the Bank authorities nor obtained the loan. He made the submission that it is the complainant herself executed the mortgage deed before the bank authorities and obtained the loan. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of the Court to document--Annexure-C. Hence, he submitted that this document clearly goes to show that the complainant herself barrowed the loan and the present petitioner has not at all impersonated the petitioner before the bank authorities. The counsel further made the submission that the name of the complainant as well the present petitioner are one and the same and taking undue advantage of the same, false complaint has been filed against the present petitioner. Sofar as the allegations in respect of the alleged offences under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, learned counsel made the submission that the present petitioner has not at all having the knowledge that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and as the present petitioner not at all committed the alleged offence of cheating against the complainant, question of implicating the petitioner for the alleged offences under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not, arise at all. Hence, counsel submitted that the present petitioner is a rustic women and she is innocent and ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and hence, she may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that since the alleged offences are also under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there is a bar u/s 18 of the said Act to entertain the petition and to grant anticipatory bail. He also made the submission that prosecution placed the prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The learned High Court Government Pleader also made the submission that as the name of the complainant as well as the petitioner--accused No. 1, are one and the same taking undue advantage of the same, the petitioner impersonated the complainant before the Bank authorities and barrowed the loan of Rs. 1,79,000/- and thereby cheated the complainant. The learned HCGP also made the submission that there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioner and hence, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. As it is submitted by both sides, it is true that the name of the complainant as well as the present petitioner is one and the same i.e., Mahadevamma, But with regard to the allegations made against the present petitioner, looking to the document dated 25.02.2011, here it is mentioned Mahadevamma W/o. Mahadegowda, so this is the document goes to show that the said document is executed prima facie by the petitioner herein. Looking to the cause title of the present petition, petitioner is the wife of Mahadegowda and in Annexure-C--mortgage deed, the name of the husband of the petitioner is shown as Mahadegowda. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his argument also made the submission that because of such allegations, the amount has been paid and it has been discharged and now there is no loan amount outstanding and in this regard Annexure-D is produced by the petitioner. This document related to discharge of the loan amount. In this document also the name of the husband of the petitioner is shown as Mahadegowdas. Therefore, these materials, prima facie goes to show that the present petitioner involved in the commission of the alleged offence and as there is a prima facie material, at this stage, about the involvement of the petitioner, giving the false information and impersonating the complainant, the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act are prima facie attracted. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act is bar for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the present petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected.