Document-Centric Investigation Makes Custodial Detention Unnecessary: Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Ex-MP’s Son In Counterfeit Stamp Paper Case

 It further noted that although offences under Sections 255 and 467 IPC provide for punishment that may extend to life imprisonment, they also prescribe a sentence that may extend up to ten years, indicating that they are not offences exclusively punishable with life imprisonment. In such circumstances, the Court held that continued custodial detention of the petitioner was not warranted and that any apprehension of the prosecution could be addressed through stringent bail conditions. 

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar noted, “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 and no recovery is pending, continued incarceration serves no investigative purpose. The petitioner has already been interrogated earlier by the Special Investigation Team”.

“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…”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu, Sandesh J Chouta appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the allegations involved were of criminal conspiracy, forgery and use of counterfeit stamp papers under various provisions of the IPC, including Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Sections 255 to 260.

According to the prosecution, the case relates to the alleged preparation and use of forged documents, including a Will, in relation to properties standing in the name of a deceased individual, Raghunath. The CBI alleged that certain documents purportedly executed during the lifetime of the deceased contained disputed signatures and were allegedly prepared on counterfeit stamp papers, which were later relied upon in civil proceedings concerning property claims.

The investigation was initially conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted pursuant to directions of the High Court. The SIT had filed closure reports in two related criminal cases, concluding that no prosecutable material was available against the petitioner, while filing a chargesheet in another case against certain other accused persons.

Subsequently, following further directions issued by the High Court in writ proceedings, the investigation in the matter was transferred to the CBI, which re-registered the case and continued the probe. The petitioner was later arrayed as accused No.9 and was arrested on 22-12-2025.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the allegations were primarily based on documentary material that had already been seized by the investigating agency. It was further submitted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, produced several documents before the authorities and had been interrogated earlier during the SIT investigation.

However, opposing the bail plea, the CBI contended that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the disputed transactions and alleged that counterfeit stamp papers and forged documents had been used to claim rights over the property of the deceased. The agency also argued that the petitioner was an influential person and could potentially influence witnesses or interfere with the ongoing investigation.

After considering the submissions of the parties and examining the material on record, the Court addressed the argument that the offences alleged against the petitioner, including Sections 255 and 467 of the IPC, provide for imprisonment which may extend to 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 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”, the Bench observed.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of bail and that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution regarding possible interference with the investigation could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail plea and directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties. The Court also imposed several conditions, including surrender of his passport, cooperation with the investigating agency, and a restriction prohibiting him from entering the State of Karnataka until the final report is filed, except when required for investigation or court proceedings.

Cause Title: D A Srinivas v. Central Bureau Of Investigation [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:12284]

Appearances:

Petitioner: S Nagamuthu, Sandesh J Chouta, Senior Advocates, Sanya Malli, Advocate.

Respondent: Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate, Prasanna Kumar P, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment