Smt Manjula Prashuram Ramganahatti A 2 vs The State Of Karnataka
- Neutral2025:KHC-D:8042
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person is accused of cheating by falsely representing themselves as having authority or position they do not hold, and receiving money on that false basis, and where investigation is ongoing and there exists a risk that the accused may tamper with prosecution witnesses or commit similar offences, anticipatory bail may be refused on the ground that the nature and circumstances of the offence and the accused's position and status, which could influence victims and witnesses, render the accused unsuitable for release on bail pending investigation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
-1- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102147 OF 2025 (438 OF Cr.PC/482 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA PARASHURAM RAMGANHATTI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & SOCIAL ACTIVITY R/O. KONNUR, TALUKA GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591231. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KULGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF BUILDING, DHARWAD-580007. ...RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. (482 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND THE KULGOD POLICE IN CRIME NO.23/2025 MAY BE DIRECTED TO ENLARGED THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST AND DETENTION TO KULGOD POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE U/S.316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) R/W. 3(5) OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDALAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -2- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
1. Heard Sri.Sunil B. Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Mallipatil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this
petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.) / Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime
No.23/2025 registered by Kulgod Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4),
336(2), and 340(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
The complainant, Sri Sadashiv, a resident of
Dhavaleshwar and a daily wage labourer, lodged a
complaint with the respondent-Police alleging that he came -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
into contact with accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused
allegedly offered him a Group 'D' post in the Court on a
contract basis and enquired whether, he was interested.
Upon expressing interest, the complainant was taken to
Gokak on the following day, where he was introduced to
one Adiveppa. Adiveppa then accompanied them to the
Circuit House in Belagavi and introduced them to accused
No.1, Uday Reddi of Mavinhonda, Raibag Taluka. Accused
No.1 informed the complainant that he could secure Group
'D' employment in the Court if a payment of Rs.2,50,000/-
was made. Relying on this assurance, the complainant paid
an advance of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1, who continued
to demand the balance amount. On 12.11.2024, the
complainant, along with Adiveppa, again met accused No.1
and requested either the promised job or a refund of the
amount already paid. In response, accused No.1 assured
the complainant that he would secure permanent Group 'D'
employment in B. Shankaranand College, Ghataprabha
within five years. He then demanded a total of -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
Rs.10,00,000/- and insisted that an advance amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- be paid.
4. Subsequently, on 14.11.2024, accused No.1
introduced accused No.2, Manjula, claiming that she was a
committee member of B. Shankaranand College,
Ghataprabha. Accused No.2 allegedly insisted on and
received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant.
Later, the complainant discovered that neither accused
No.1 nor accused No.2 were committee members of the
said college. Moreover, they had prepared a fake
appointment order to mislead him.
5. Based on these allegations, the complainant
lodged a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR
and initiation of investigation. Apprehending arrest by the
respondent-Police, the petitioner/accused No.2 has filed the
present application seeking anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
implicated in the present case. It was contended that the
allegations made in the FIR and the complaint do not
disclose the commission of any offence. No prima facie
case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it was
prayed that the petition be allowed.
7. Learned HCGP for the respondent-State
submitted that the Investigating Officer has gathered
sufficient material to establish the involvement of the
present petitioner in the crime. The petitioner, being
accused No. 2, allegedly received a sum of Rs.2,00,000 by
falsely claiming to be a member of the committee of B.
Shankaranand College, Ghataprabha, and both accused
Nos.1 and 2 fabricated a fake appointment order. It was
further contended that the investigation is still ongoing,
and if accused No.2 is granted anticipatory bail, she may
obstruct the investigation and intimidate the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, learned HCGP prayed that the
petition be rejected.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. Upon perusal of the material on record, it
appears that the complainant paid sums of Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/- to accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. In this
case, accused No.2, by falsely claiming to be a member of
the committee of B. Shankaranand College, Ghataprabha,
issued an appointment order to a relative of the
complainant. This indicates that the petitioner, being
accused No.2, is involved in offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), and 340(2) read with
Section 3(5) of the BNS Act, with the intent to cheat, and
used the forged appointment order as a genuine document,
thereby attracting the provisions of Section 471 of the IPC,
resulting in the cheating of the complainant. If the
petitioner is released on bail, there is a risk that she may
commit a similar offence or tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. Considering the nature of the offence, the
circumstances under which it was committed, and the
position and status of the petitioner, which could influence
the victim and witnesses, the petitioner, is not entitled for -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8042 CRL.P No. 102147 of 2025
HC-KAR
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass
the following order:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE
AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free