Karnataka High Court
Sri D A Srinivas vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 961 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D A SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D. K. ADIKESHAVALU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. No. 6, CV RAMAN ROAD
SADASHIVANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 080.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S NAGAMUTHU, SENIOR ADVCOATE A/W
SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
MS.SANYA MALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA THROUGH INVESTIGATION OFFICER
MURTHY RAJASHRI ADDL. SUPDT. OF POLICE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CBI, SCB, CHENNAI
KARNATAKA REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE
SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
UNDER SECTION 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.9 ON REGULAR BAIL IN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
CR.No.RC.07(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B READ WITH SECTIONS
465, 467, 468, 471, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 AND 260 OF THE
IPC REGISTERED BY THE CBI/SCB/CHENNAI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.9
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail in
Crime No.RC07(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with
Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and
260 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent – CBI and learned Senior Counsel appearing
for de-facto complainant.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
contend that earlier there were two complaints registered
against the petitioner in Crime Nos.148/2020 and
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
89/2020. In both crimes, the matter has been investigated
by Special Investigation Team. In Crime Nos.89/2020 and
148/2020, the ‘B’ report has been filed. The charge sheet
has not been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner
earlier had been granted anticipatory bail in both Crime
Nos.148/2020 and 89/2020. There is no allegation against
this petitioner of violating any of the conditions imposed
while granting anticipatory bail in both cases.
Subsequently, PCR No.51691/2020 has been filed, the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and ordered
investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The said
investigation is referred to police under Section 202(1)
and police filed ‘B’ report. Thereafter, W.P.No.7784/2022
has been filed seeking transfer of investigation. Pursuant
to the order dated 28.04.2021 passed in
W.P.No.4333/2021, the investigation of all the three
crimes came to be transferred to Special Investigation
Team headed by the Officer of the rank of Deputy
Commissioner of Police. After detailed investigation, the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
Special Investigation Team has filed ‘B’ closure report in
Crime Nos.89/2020 and 148/2020, contended that no
prosecutable material was available to proceed further in
the matter against the petitioner and his other companion
accused. The Special Investigation Team conducted the
investigation in Crime No.7/2021 and submitted detailed
charge sheet against 08 accused persons on 03.01.2022
before jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court took cognizance
and registered case in C.C.No.544/2022 and committed
the matter to the Sessions Court, now pending in
S.C.No.1522/2022 and presently the said case is
transferred back to jurisdictional Magistrate and it is
pending consideration. The petitioner’s statement was also
recorded by the Special Investigation Team during
investigation and he completely cooperated for the
investigation of the said crime.
4. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that
the subsequent direction issued by the Hon’ble Court
dated 03.09.2022 in W.P.7784/2022, further investigation
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
was entrusted to the respondent – CBI, pursuant to which
the present case i.e., Crime No.7/2021 came to be re-
registered as RC 7(S)/2022 for offences under Sections
255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 420 of I.P.C., against
unknown persons. The petitioner and others filed SLP
Nos.10449/2022 and 10515/2022 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India challenging the order dated
03.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7784/2022.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has stayed the investigation of the
case vide order dated 14.11.2022 and thereafter, was
pleased to dismiss both the SLP’s on 23.04.2025 while
directing the respondent – CBI to conclude the
investigation within eight months from the date of receipt
of the order. Now the said eight months time is over. The
petitioner came to be arrested on 22.12.2025 two days
prior to completing of the said 08 months. The petitioner
has furnished all the documents available with him with his
letters dated 30.07.2025, 03.09.2025, 24.09.2025 and the
said documents have been seized under seizure memo
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
under which 15 documents have been seized and they
have been handed over by the petitioner. The petitioner is
not involved in counterfeiting of stamp paper as he has
purchased the stamp paper through his employee and he
not knows who forged the stamp paper. In the earlier
investigation it has not revealed the conspiracy of this
petitioner with other accused who have been
chargesheeted. The petitioner who has been granted
earlier anticipatory bail in two crimes has not violated any
of the conditions.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
time to investigate the matter has been over. As the
investigation is completed therefore, the petitioner is not
required for custody interrogation. The petitioner has been
taken to police custody for 08 days between 22.12.2025
and 29.12.2025 so there is no recovery from the
petitioner. The petitioner has co-operated for
investigation. The other 05 accused who have been charge
sheeted, who are stamp vendor, machine operator, from
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
whom stamp paper has been recovered, seal of Sub –
Register was found with the person have been granted
bail. The petitioner who is alleged of conspiracy with the
said accused persons is similarly placed to that of those
accused persons and therefore, he is entitled for grant of
bail on the ground of parity. There is no any allegation of
absconding of the petitioner. The petitioner has co-
operated with the CBI investigating officers in the
investigation. All the documents which are required for
investigation are available with the CBI and the Special
Investigation Team. The Special Investigation Team has
stated that petitioner has no role and the present
respondent -CBI has stated that the petitioner has role in
conspiracy in counterfeiting of the stamp papers etc. There
are conflicting opinions by two agencies therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on that ground. The
petitioner is ready to surrender his passport and go out of
Karnataka till investigation is over and final report is filed.
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that bail is rule and
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
jail is an exception. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are not punishable either with death or
imprisonment for life. Even though for offence punishable
under Section 467 of IPC punishment of imprisonment for
life is prescribed, but that provision itself provides that
sentence of imprisonment may extend upto 10 years
which indicate that there is no minimum sentence
prescribed for the said offence. On the points raised, the
learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the
following decisions:
1) National Bank of Oman Vs Barakara Abduk Aziz and
Another1
3) Sri Srinivas Dalavoi Vs Union of Indian and Another3
5) Smt. M.Manjula and Another Vs State of Karnataka and
others51
Reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488
2
Reported in (2015) 6 SCC 439
3
In W.P.No.26737/2024(GM-RES)
4
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55/2026
5
In Writ Petition No.7784/2022 (GM-RES)
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026HC-KAR
8) State of Rajasthan V Balchan8
9) P. Chidambaram Vs Directorate of enforcement9
13) Gulfishma Fatima Vs State (NCTI of Delhi)13
With these, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Learned Special PP for the respondent -CBI
would contend that in the year 2005 till 2011 a total
extent of 54 acres of land has been registered under sale
deed in the name of Raghunath and part of sale
consideration has been paid by the father of the petitioner.
The said Raghunath had executed Will dated 28.01.2016
in favour of his wife and it is genuine document. The sale
6
Reported in (2009) 2 SCC 281
7
Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40
8
Reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308
9
Reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791
10
Reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280
11
Reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240
12
Reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51
13
Reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10
14
Reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
agreements said to have been executed by Raghunath
have been produced in O.S.No.246/2020. The Senior Sub-
Registrar, Gandhinagar, gave complaint to the Halasurgate
Police Station with regard to fake franking of stamp paper
and it is registered in Crime No.7/2021. Subsequently, it is
now presently registered in RC No.7(S)/2022. Earlier there
were two cases registered one in Crime No.89/2020 of
HAL Police Station with regard to the unnatural death of
Raghunath and Crime No.148/2020 of Halasurgate Police
Station with regard to forged Will of Raghunath. Crime
No.7/2021 has been registered with regard to fake
franking papers used for sale agreements etc,. The Special
Investigation Team has been constituted headed by the
DCP as per order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.4333/2021. The said Special Investigation Team
has investigated the matter, obtained FSL report and filed
‘B’ report in respect of Crime No.148/2020 and filed
charge sheet in Crime No.7/2020 against accused Nos.1 to
8. The petitioner is the beneficiary of all the transactions.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
W.P.No.778/2022 has been filed for referring the
investigation to CBI and it came to be allowed and in the
order it is mentioned that the CBI shall not be influenced
by investigation done by State agencies. Crime
No.89/2020 has now been registered as RC 5(S)/2020 and
Crime No.148/2020 has now been registered with CBI in
RC 6(S)/2022. The petitioner has got anticipatory bail in
RC 5 and 6 of 2022. The present case pertains to RC
7(S)/2022. Will dated 20.04.2018 has been prepared on
the document sheet on which date mentioned is
23.10.2019 i.e., after death of Raghunath on 04.05.2019.
The seizure mahazar dated 22.10.2020, under which
specimens admitted signature of deceased have been
collected from the hospital have been suppressed by
Special Investigation Team officials and it has been
replaced by mahazar dated 18.12.2022 under which the
admitted signature of Raghunath has been forged to tally
with the signature on the Will and it has been sent to FSL.
The FSL on examination has held that both signatures
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
have been made by one and the same person. The said
mahazar dated 18.12.2022 has been prepared in the PC of
sister of the petitioner. The CBI has now collected the said
mahazar dated 22.10.2020 and the documents seized
under it and has sent them along with the Will to CFSL,
Hyderabad. Wherein the signature on the Will is found to
be forged and stamp papers used are back dated. The
allegations in earlier crimes i.e., Crime Nos.89/2020 and
148/2020 are not same as that of present Crime
No.7/2021. The said Crime No.7/2021 which is now under
investigation under RC 7(S)/2022 by the CBI. The scope of
investigation in RC 7(S)/2022 is different than earlier two
crimes i.e., Crime Nos.89/2020 and 148/2020. Blank
stamp papers similar to that of used for Will and
agreements have been recovered from the possession of
the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is
grave. The petitioner is an influential person and there are
chances of him influencing the persons involved in the
investigation and witnesses as he did it earlier by
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
suppressing the mahazar with the help of ACP. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has granted 08 months time for
investigation by the CBI. Now the said 08 months time has
been expired during December -2025. The CBI has sought
for extension of time. The petitioner is having criminal
antecedents involved in NDPS and murder case. The
petitioner has sent threatening messages to the wife and
son of Raghunath. The offences alleged against the
petitioner namely Sections 255 and 467 of IPC are
provided with sentence of imprisonment for life. The
investigation is at final stage. If the petitioner is granted
bail, there are chances of him hampering the further
investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
With these, he prays to reject the petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defacto
complainant would contend that the Crime No.7/2021 of
Halasurgate Police Station has been registered based on
the complaint filed by the Senior Sub -Registrar. The wife
of the deceased -Raghunath had filed complaint to the
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
Senior Sub -Registrar and based on that the Senior Sub –
Registrar had filed complaint registered in Crime
No.7/2021. The offence alleged against the petitioner is
an economic offence using counterfeit of stamp papers by
using franking machine. After death of Raghunath on
04.05.2019, Will has been created by the petitioner by
back-dating on counterfeit stamp paper and other
documents which are of the date backed to 10 years. The
petitioner and his family are powerful and there are
chances of him influencing the State machinery and the
State machinery works for him. The Special Investigation
Team in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.07/2021 has
dropped the name of this petitioner and his sister. The
wife of Raghunath, namely Manjula has filed protest
petition for further investigation under Section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C. Without considering the same, the Magistrate has
committed the case to the Sessions Court. Even the
Raghunath, who is dead has been made as accused No.8
in the charge filed by the Special Investigation Team in
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
Crime No.7/2021. The order passed by this Court in the
writ petition directing CBI investigation has been
challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has disposed of the said
petition. In the said SLP directed the CBI to complete the
investigation within 08 months. The charge sheet filed
against accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.07/2021 by the
Special Investigation Team does not pertain to the stamp
papers used for Will and other documents under which the
petitioner is beneficiary. Section 255 of IPC attracts to the
person who will secure counterfeit stamp papers. Accused
Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.7/2021 have been granted bail
after 3.5 years of their judicial custody on the reason that
the investigation had been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The petitioner has won over State machinery and
the witnesses. The petitioner is involved in seven cases
including offences under NDPS Act, bomb blast at Chittur.
In his election nomination, he has mentioned that he is
involved in Crime No.145/2007. The CBI is investigating
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
regarding counterfeit stamp papers on which documents
are created under which petitioner is beneficiary. The
earlier conduct of the petitioner indicates that he is a
influential person and there are chances of he tampering
prosecution witnesses and hampering investigation. Merely
time granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court for investigation is
over is not a ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would submit that multiple FIR’s and crimes
have been registered against the petitioner with the same
set of facts i.e., counterfeit stamp papers, creating Will
and other documents, forging the signature of the
deceased -Raghunath and that is not permissible. Now all
the documents are with the CBI and the State agencies.
The documents with the State agencies i.e., Special
Investigation Team have been collected by the CBI. The
sister of the petitioner who has been arrested in RC
6(S)/2022 on 22.12.2025 on the same ground that she
has conspired with the petitioner to create Will has been
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
granted bail by the Magistrate. But the petitioner has been
arrested in different crime i.e., RC 7(S)/2022 merely,
because he has been granted anticipatory bail in RC
6(S)/2022. The time granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court
for investigation i.e., 8 months has been expired in
December – 2025. The CBI has not sought extension of
time and if CBI had sought extension of time there ought
to have been dairy number mentioned in the case status.
The petitioner has been acquitted in bomb blast case and
NDPS case registered against him has been quashed in
W.P.No.26737/2024 by order dated 23.06.2025 by
Coordinate Branch of this Court.
9. Having heard learned counsels for parties, the
Court has perused the materials placed on record.
10. FIR in Crime No. 7/2021 came to be registered
by the Halasurgate Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 255, 257, 259, 256, 258, 260 of IPC
against certain unknown persons on 04.01.2021 upon a
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
complaint lodged by Sri Krishna Naik, Sub-Registrar,
Gandhinagar alleging that he came to know through a
newspaper report dated 14.12.2020 published in
Prajavani, that forged documents were prepared using
Franking Machine PB No.6924 which belongs to his office
and 08 documents of Yelahanka Sub-Registrar Office, 09
documents of Shivajinagar Sub-Registrar Office and 05
documents of Kengeri Sub-Registrar Office while using
forged seal and signature of his office officials.
11. Smt. M Manjula and Sri Rohith who are the de-
facto complainants in Crime No.89/2020 and Crime
No.148/2020 respectively had approached this Hon’ble
Court in W.P.No.4333/2021 seeking direction to refer the
investigation of Crime No.7/2021 along with other two
FIR’s i.e., Crime No.89/2020 and Crime No.148/2020 by
CBI or Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of
the rank of an IGP. This Court vide order dated
28.04.2021 directed the State to assign the investigation
of all three FIR’s to Special Investigation Team headed by
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
an Officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police
who had not earlier dealt with those cases or held
supervisory jurisdiction over those police stations.
12. Pursuant to order dated 28/04/2021 of this
Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.4333/2021, the investigation of
all the three crimes came to be transferred to Special
Investigation Team headed by an officer of the rank of
Deputy Commissioner of Police. After a detailed
investigation, the Special Investigation Team filed ‘B’
closure report in Crime No.148/2020, Crime No.89/2020
categorically opining that no prosecutable material was
available to proceed further in the matter against the
petitioner and his other companion accused.
13. The Special Investigation Team conducted
investigation in Crime No.7/2021 and submitted a detailed
chargesheet against 8 accused persons including the 3
deceased (accused Nos.6 to 8) on 03.01.2022 before the
jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
has taken cognizance of the offence in C.C.No.544/2022
and committed the matter to the Court of Hon’ble LX Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) and the
same came to be registered as S.C.No.1522/2022 and
presently the case is transferred back to the jurisdictional
Magistrate and is pending consideration. The petitioner’s
statement was also recorded by the Special Investigation
Team during investigation.
14. Thereafter, upon a subsequent direction issued
by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2022 in
W.P.No.7784/2022 further investigation was entrusted to
the respondent-CBI, pursuant to which the present case
(Crime No. 7/2021) came to be re-registered as RC
07(S)/2022 under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
and 420 of IPC against unknown persons.
15. The petitioner among others had preferred two
SLP’s bearing No.10449/2022 and 10515/2022 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
dated 03.09.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in
W.P.No.7784/2022. The Hon’ble Apex Court had stayed
the investigation of the case vide order dated 14.11.2022
and thereafter was pleased to dismiss both the SLP’s on
23.04.2025 while directing the respondent-CBI to conclude
the investigation within 08 months from the date of receipt
of the order.
16. Based on the investigation conducted so far, it
is alleged that the petitioner was associated with certain
documents including a Will, relating to properties standing
in the name of late Shri K. Raghunath, which were later
produced before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore
Rural, in O.S.No.246/2020. The respondent-CBI claims
that several of these documents, purportedly executed
during the lifetime of Shri Raghunath, contain disputed
signatures and that a number of such documents also bear
the signatures of the petitioner, who is stated to be a
beneficiary. It is further alleged that some documents may
have been prepared or printed after the death of Shri
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
Raghunath and were shown as having been executed
earlier, during his lifetime and that certain franking
impressions and official seals appearing on the documents
are not genuine. On this basis, the investigation suggests
that the documents were used in civil proceedings to
assert property-related claims, and that the petitioner,
along with other accused persons, is alleged to have
played a role in their creation and user to his advantage.
17. During the course of further investigation by
CBI in RC 7(S)/2022, the petitioner was arrayed as
accused No.9 and was arrested on 22.12.2025 since then
he is in custody.
18. The very same sets of allegations forming the
basis of RC 7(S)/2022 were earlier investigated by Special
Investigation Team pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble
Court in W.P.No.4333/2021. After detailed investigation,
the Special Investigation Team filed ‘B’ Reports in Crime
No.89/2020 and Crime No.148/2020, concluding that the
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
allegations were false and the dispute was essentially civil
in nature. Even in Crime No.7/2021, the Special
Investigation Team filed a charge sheet against certain
other accused persons and did not array the petitioner as
an accused.
19. The petitioner prior to his arrest has produced
totally 59 documents under his letters dated 30.07.2025,
03.09.2025 and 24.09.2025 and they have been seized
under seizure memo dated 10.07.2025.
20. The petitioner who came to be arrested on
22.12.2025 has been taken to police custody for 07 days
and he has been interrogated. There is no recovery at the
instance of the petitioner.
21. The entire case of the prosecution rests on
documents which are already seized, available on record,
and subjected to forensic examination. The petitioner does
not hold custody of any document, seal, stamp, or
material object. When investigation is document-centric
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
and no recovery is pending, continued incarceration serves
no investigative purpose. The petitioner has already been
interrogated earlier by the Special Investigation Team.
22. Even as per the prosecution case, the alleged
counterfeiting of government stamps and seals is
attributed to some other accused persons who in fact have
been already charge-sheeted by the Special Investigation
Team. There is no direct allegation that the petitioner has
operated the franking machine, forged seals or
manufactured stamp papers. The allegation is one of
association or alleged usage.
23. During the course of further investigation by
the CBI, the petitioner was not immediately arrayed as an
accused. He appeared before the CBI-IO as and when
summoned and furnished all documents. CBI has already
collected documentary, oral, and circumstantial evidence.
24. The petitioner has instituted a civil suit in O.S.
No.246/2020 on 13.02.2020 before the Court of the
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural,
seeking declaratory and injunctory reliefs in relation to
certain properties which came to be bequeathed in his
favour under the Will dated 20.04.2018 against Smt. M.
Manjula, Sri Rohith and Sri Prathap, who are the heirs of
late Raghunath K. In the said suit, the Civil Court granted
an order of injunction in the nature of maintenance of
status quo on 28.02.2020. The validity of the Will is itself
the subject matter in O.S.No.246/2020 pending before the
competent civil court.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram
Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another15 has
observed as under:
”1. A fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence,
meaning thereby that a person is believed to be
innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus
has been placed on an accused with regard to some
specific offences but that is another matter and
15
Reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026HC-KAR
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in
respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant
of bail is the general rule and putting a person in
jail or in a prison or in a correction home
(whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the
result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not
do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our
society.”
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay
Chandra(Supra) has held as under:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of
bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026HC-KAR
after conviction, and that every man is deemed to
be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
27. It is contented that the offence of counterfeit of
stamp paper is economic offence and therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has considered that an accused person to be
granted bail if the allegation is commission of economic
offence in the case of P. Chidambaram(Supra) wherein
it is held as under:
“23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the
judgments cited on either side including the one
rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it
could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence
relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the
grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception
so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while
considering the same the gravity of the offence is
an aspect which is required to be kept in view by
the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will
have to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view
the consequences that would befall on the society
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026HC-KAR
in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held
that even economic offences would fall under the
category of “grave offence” and in such
circumstance while considering the application for
bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal
with the same, being sensitive to the nature of
allegation made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence
is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for
the offence the accused is alleged to have
committed. Such consideration with regard to the
gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to
the triple test or the tripod test that would be
normally applied. In that regard what is also to be
kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is
one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that
bail should be denied in every case since there is no
such bar created in the relevant enactment passed
by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is
that irrespective of the nature and gravity of
charge, the precedent of another case alone will not
be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail
though it may have a bearing on principle. But
ultimately the consideration will have to be on case
to case basis on the facts involved therein and
securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.”
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
28. While considering application for bail, detailed
discussion of evidence and elaborated documentation on
merits is to be avoided. No party should have an
impression that his case has been pre-judged. The same
has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Vaman Narain(Supra).
29. The original will and other documents seized by
the Investigating Agency have been sent to CFSL,
Hyderabad, for examination and the Investigating Officer
has received the report. In the said report, it is opined
that the signature of deceased -Raghunath has been
forged. The main allegation against the petitioner is that
he used counterfeit stamp paper for creating documents
namely Will, agreements etc., to knock off the property of
the deceased -Raghunath. Considering the fact that the
disputed documents have been examined by the expert
and as the report and opinion have been received by the
Investigating Agency, itself indicates that the major
portion of the investigation is over. On query about the
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
stage of investigation with the Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the CBI, he submitted that Investigation is
at final stage. Considering the said aspect, it can be said
that major portion of the investigation is over and
therefore, the petitioner is not required for further
custodial interrogation.
30. It is alleged that the petitioner had won over
the officers of State Investigating Agency and got FSL
report in his favour and the officers who helped the
petitioner have been booked. Now the matter has been
investigated by CBI, well-reputed Investigating agency. As
the major portion of the investigation is over and the fact
that the CFSL report has also been received by the
Investigating Agency, it cannot be now be alleged that
there are chances of the petitioner winning over the
Officers of the Investigating Agency and the prosecution
witnesses. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is ready to be away from the
state of Karnataka and he will not enter the Karnataka and
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
any condition to that effect can be imposed. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that in order to meet the
flight risk to the petitioner is ready to surrender his
passport.
31. It is contented that the petitioner is involved in
bomb blast case and NDPS case. Learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner has placed on record an order passed in
W.P.No.26737/2024 dated 23.06.2025, where under the
NDPS case registered against the petitioner in Special
C.C.No.491/2023 has been quashed. It is also submitted
that the petitioner has been acquitted in bomb blast case.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari
Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another16 has held has
under:
“7. ……. The offence alleged no doubt is
grave and serious and there are several criminal
cases pending against the accused. These factors
by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of
prayer for bail.”
16
Reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhimanue Etc., Vs
State of Kerala17 has held has under:
“23. Our attention was also invited to the
status report filed by the State, to indicate the
various criminal antecedents of the appellants.
Suffice it to say, however, that such antecedents by
themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of
bail. In this context, a useful reference may be
made to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ayub Khan v. State ofRajasthan of which
one of us (Augustine George Masih, J.) was a
member. The relevant paragraph there from is
extracted below:
10. The presence of the antecedents of
the accused is only one of the several
considerations for deciding the prayer for
bail made by him. In a given case, if the
accused makes out a strong prima
facie case, depending upon the fact situation
and period of incarceration, the presence of
antecedents may not be a ground to deny
bail. There may be a case where a Court can
grant bail only on the grounds of long17
Reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
incarceration. The presence of antecedents
may not be relevant in such a case. In a
given case, the Court may grant default bail.
Again, the antecedents of the accused are
irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending
upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant
bail notwithstanding the existence of the
antecedents…..”
34. It is submitted that the offence alleged against
the petitioner under Sections 255 and 467 of IPC are
provided with sentence of imprisonment which may extend
upto imprisonment for life. The said provisions also
provide that the sentence of imprisonment may be
imposed upto 10 years. The said aspect itself indicates
that it is not exclusively punishable with imprisonment for
life. Considering the above aspects and the fact that the
petitioner has been interrogated in police custody for 07
days and he is in judicial custody since last 02 months and
that the major portion of the investigation is over. The
petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with
conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
the petitioner is granted bail he will hamper the
investigation, tamper the prosecution witnesses, and
commit similar offence can be met with by imposing
stringent conditions.
35. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime
No.RC07(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B read
with Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 255, 256, 257,
258, 259 and 260 of IPC subject to following
conditions:
a) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall execute bail
bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two
sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
b) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall appear
before the Investigating Officer whenever called
for and cooperate for further investigation, if
any.
c) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall not directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such a facts to the court or police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
d) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall surrender
his passport within one week after his release
on bail.
e) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall not enter
the State of Karnataka till final report is filed,
except for the purposes of further investigation
whenever summoned by the Investigating
Officer or attending the Court.
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:12284
CRL.P No. 961 of 2026
HC-KAR
f) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall not tamper
the prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
g) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall not involve
in commission of any offence.
h) The petitioner -accused No.9 shall attend the
trial court on all dates of hearing unless
exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of
the case.
If the petitioner -accused No.9 violates any of the
above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail granted to him.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Ct.sm