Taking note of fraud played on courts by a person in filing separate petitions in different courts at the same time seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal case, the High Court of Karnataka has issued guidelines, including evolving technology-based mechanism, to curb such fraudulent means to get anticipatory or regular bails from the courts.
Justice H.P. Sandesh passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by 40-year-old Nanjappa, a resident of Navarathna Agrahara of Sadahalli in Bangalore Rural district, who had sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case of cheating through impersonation and fabrication of land records registered against him in 2021 at Chikkajala police station.
The petitioner had filed a plea, seeking anticipatory bail in the Principal Bench of the High Court in Bengaluru earlier in the same case after a trial court in Bengaluru refused to give him anticipatory bail. At the same time, he had also filed separate petitions before the district courts in Mysuru and Tumakuru by giving fake addresses seeking anticipatory bail in the same criminal case.
By directing the Registrar-General to lodge a complaint with the police, the High Court also directed the police to complete the investigation within three months from the date of registration of complaint and submit a report to the court.
The High Court found it necessary to conduct investigation as the advocate for the petitioner claimed before the High Court that “petitioner had not given any instructions to the respective counsel to file petition before the Tumakuru court as well as Mysuru court.” The High Court also found that the petitioner, in the present petition, had not disclosed filling of any of the earlier petitions seeking anticipatory bail.
Guidelines
A mechanism should be evolved in every court to verify every petition seeking regular or anticipatory bail to find out whether similar petitions are made before any other courts in the same case, the High Court directed its Registrar-General.
The High Court also directed that the Department of Prosecution will have to instruct all the public prosecutors that they are duty bound to supply information to respective courts on the earlier decision or pending applications for bail in the same case on the accused after taking details from police officers.
The registry of the High Court and the trial courts were also directed to insist for vakalat of the advocates when a petition is filed seeking for an anticipatory bail.
Change IO
Meanwhile, the High Court directed the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police to change the investigating officer (IO) as he had not only failed to investigate the criminal case against the petitioner but had allowed him to play fraud on the courts by not arresting him even though the IO had the knowledge of petitioner fraudulently approaching the different courts for anticipatory bail.
