Smt Manjula Prashuram Ramganahatti A 2 vs The State Of Karnataka

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