The LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-60), on January 27, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to Charan Raj G.K., an MBA graduate, in connection with an alleged job fraud case related to recruitments at the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF). The petitioner, sought relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl. Misc. No. 552/2023, filed in response to Crime No. 16/2023 registered by the Adugodi Police Station for offences under Sections 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
The case has attracted attention as it involves the alleged use of forged documents pertaining to government employment, specifically the direct recruitment for various posts announced by KMF through a notification dated October 20, 2022.
Background of the Allegations
The complaint was lodged by Sri. Lokesh K., Superintendent of KMF, Bengaluru. The complaint detailed that following a written examination held on December 18, 2022, and the subsequent release of key answers on the official website, a discrepancy was noticed. It was found that a fake document—specifically a fake appointment order—was circulating, purportedly in the name of the petitioner, Charan Raj G.K. This fake document was elaborate, bearing the name of the institution, the Karnataka State Emblem , and a forged signature of the DPR Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Government of Karnataka. Furthermore, another fake document was found stating that training would be provided to Charan Raj G.K. by KMF directors.
Based on these findings, the Adugodi police registered a case against the accused persons, including Charan Raj G.K.
Petitioner’s Defense: Claiming Innocence and Victim Status
Appearing through his counsel, Sri. Gururaj K., the petitioner, Charan Raj G.K., strongly contested the allegations. He asserted his absolute innocence and claimed he had been falsely implicated in the case. Crucially, the petitioner argued that he was, in fact, the victim of a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by third parties.
The petitioner, described as an MBA graduate and an aspirant for public services, highlighted the potential damage the case would inflict on his career and reputation. He further stated that he is the sole breadwinner for his family, belongs to a respectable family in Chikkaballapur, and has strong roots in society, thereby eliminating any apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. The petitioner expressed his readiness to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, including furnishing surety.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The learned Public Prosecutor filed a statement of objections, reiterating the serious nature of the allegations—forgery, cheating, and using forged documents—which prima-facie establish a case against the petitioner. The prosecution argued that if released on bail at this stage, the petitioner might permanently abscond, tamper with the prosecution witnesses, and ultimately hamper the investigation, urging the court to reject the application.
The Court’s Critical Finding
Justice Sadananda Nagappa Naik, presiding over the matter, meticulously reviewed the arguments and the material on record. The court’s order noted a significant distinction in the gravity of the accusations. The judge observed that the “only allegation against the petitioner in the complaint is that accused No. 1 Prakash has made an agreement with the present petitioner for providing a job in KMF.” The court emphasized that the main allegation of fraud and forgery appeared to be directed against the co-accused, Prakash (Accused No. 1), who allegedly made the job agreement with Charan Raj G.K.
Crucially, the court stated, “Further, the present petitioner appears to be victim himself.”
While acknowledging that whether the petitioner committed the offences or not is a matter for trial, the court held that the prosecution’s apprehension that the petitioner might flee from justice or tamper with evidence could be adequately mitigated by imposing stringent conditions. Given the petitioner’s respectable background and the strong indication that he might have been a victim rather than a perpetrator, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the anticipatory bail.
Judgement and Conditions for Release
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed the petition. The Adugodi police were directed to release Charan Raj G.K. on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 16/2023.
The order stipulated that the petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following mandatory conditions:
- The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation with the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the Court for the completion of the trial of the case.
- The petitioner 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.
- The petitioner shall not commit offences of a similar nature.
- The petitioner and his sureties shall intimate the trial court immediately without fail of any changes in their residential addresses.
The court warned that violation of any of the conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail. This decision provides temporary relief to the petitioner, allowing him to focus on defending the case while the investigation into the broader job racket continues.