1. The Crl.P.No.444/2023 is filed by the petitioneraccused No.7, Crl.P.No.12249/2022 is filed by the petitioneraccused No.11 and the Crl.P.No.930/2022 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.10, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.180/2022 registered by Halasurgate Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468, 473, 420 120B read with 34 of IPC, pending on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1916/2022.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that a suo-motu complaint was registered by Halasurugate police station against the petitioners and others on 19.7.2022. It is alleged that the police received credible information that some persons were selling fake stamp papers at Kandaya Bhavana Bengaluru. Therefore, the police set up a D-kayath customer for purchasing the old stamp papers. Accordingly, the said D-Kayath met one Karthik and requested the old stamp paper for the face value of Rs.50/- and face value of Rs.10/-. Further, the said Karthik, introduced accused No.1/Vishwanath and the police gave Rs.10,000/- towards advance for purchasing e-stamp paper and the accused persons said to have charged Rs.5,000/- for stamp paper for the face value of Rs.10/- and Rs.6,000/- for face value of Rs.50/-. Accordingly, a trap was laid on 19.7.2022 at 7.30 a.m. and when the accused No.4 brought the e-stamp paper, the police trapped and seized the stamp paper. During the investigation it was revealed that all these petitioners are also involved in this case. The police arrested the accused No.7 on 20.7.2022, accused No.10 was arrested on 1.8.2022 and the accused No.11 was arrested on 4.8.2022. Earlier their bail petition came to be dismissed, hence they are before this court with successive bail petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the accused No.7 and 11 are the Typists and they are doing the job work by typing at the request of customers, they have nothing to do with any contents appearing in the paper whereas their job is only to type the contents provided by the customers. They are in custody from nearly 6 months and they are ready to abide by any conditions. Investigation is completed, hence prayed for granting bail.

5. Learned counsel for accused No.10 also submits that he is the beneficiary of the stamp paper who purchased stamp paper from accused No.8 and there is no specific overt acts against him. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, hence prayed for granting bail.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that the accused No.7 though a typist but a notary seal was seized from him which reveals he is creating document in collusion with other accused by using old stamp papers. Thereby all these accused persons were cheating the general public and the offence is heinous one. As a result, there is loss to the exchequer to the State. The accused No.10 is a beneficiary of the e-stamp paper who created the documents by obtaining the fake e-stamp papers and if they are granted bail they may commit similar offence and tamper witnesses, hence prayed for rejecting the petitions.

7. Having heard the arguments of both the parties and on perusal of the records, which reveals, that the accused persons involved in selling the fake e-stamp papers and also old stamp papers on higher rate thereby causing loss to the exchequer. That apart the accused nos.7 and 11 are the typists knowing fully they helped the other accused in typing the contents of the agreement of GPA sale etc., on the old papers. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have no role in the selling the fake e-stamp papers. That apart, accused No.10 who is beneficiary and who received stamp papers from accused No.8 and created title deeds. The police also seized fake notary seal from accused No.7. The police unearthed fake stamp racket and arrested all these accused persons. This court already rejected the bail petition of the co-accused persons. The offence is heinous one and affects the economy of the State and also cheating the original owners of the property by creating the fake documents and filing the false cases by claiming the rights over the properties. Therefore, I am of the view the petitioners are not entitled for the bail.

Accordingly, I pass following order;

All the three petitions filed by petitioners/accused Nos.7, 10 and 11 are hereby dismissed.