Bengaluru: Like hundreds who applied for the job of 'typist' in the Karnataka High Court, 28-year-old Sanjay Kumar A. Huded from Khanapur in Belagavi district too had applied.
But the officials grew suspicious when they received a recommendation for Huded from Prime Minister's Office that he be appointed to the post of typist. When they investigated they found that the aspirant had 'fabricated' the letter.
Sanjay was eventually arrested following an FIR registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC. Pursuant to completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, the accused had sought for bail.
However, the lower court had rejected his plea stating that filing of chargesheet by itself would not in any way entitle the petitioner to claim changed circumstances for grant of bail.
Later, he approached High Court, which granted bail to him by imposing certain conditions.
During the hearing of his bail plea before the HC, the prosecution had opposed grant of bail to him contending that it is a serious offence and hence, the accused is not entitled for bail.
“Looking into the nature of complaint and the offences made out, the case rests entirely on documentary evidence and therefore, the question as to whether the documents submitted by the petitioner are genuine or not and the fact of commission of offence as made out in the charge sheet is to be proved during trial. Further, looking into the nature of offences on which the case rests, the question of tampering with the eyewitness, as such, does not arise in the present case,” the HC has observed in its order while granting bail to the accused.
The court further noted in this case that the proceedings relating to grant of bail cannot be construed to be punitive in nature.
