IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7931/2017 BETWEEN:
Mr. Aejaz Ahmed S/o M A Khalid Aged about 57 years R/o No.6, 2nd Cross Rahathnagarm R T Nagar Bengaluru-560 032. .. PETITIONER (By Sri Bharath Kumar V, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka Through Station House Officer Chikkaballapura Rural Police Station Chikkaballapura-562 101.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.249/2017 of Chikkaballapura Rural P.S., Chikkaballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 420 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 420 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.249/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that information dated 30.08.2017 was preferred by Sri L S Sikandar, Manager, District Minorities Development Corporation, Chikkaballapura, alleging that the petitioner herein was the manager of the District Minorities Development Corporation, Chikkaballapura for the period from 30.06.2016 to 20.07.2017. When the petitioner was the manager for the above said period, he had misused the power as the manager and had further received money in a sum of Rs.29,33,075/- from minorities towards their respective loans. It is further alleged that the petitioner has deposited only a sum of Rs.5,73,660/- out of the above said amount of Rs.29,33,075/-. Again the petitioner herein has received money in a sum of Rs.4,84,172/- for the period from April-2017 to July- 2017, from members towards their respective loans and out of the said amount, the petitioner has deposited only in a sum of Rs.1,98,710/- and the petitioner had misused the power and money when he was as the Manager of District Minorities Development Corporation, Chikkaballapura and he had cheated the corporation of a sum of Rs.26,44,837/-. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount in the Corporation. Of course, he is the Manager in the said Corporation, but so many other officials like cashier and other officials were also connected with the recovery proceedings in the said Corporation. Without conducting any departmental enquiry, only basis of the crime, the complainant approached the police and got filed criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that the amount in question was sanctioned by the Government so also collected from the borrowers. Internal audit report shows misappropriation of amount by the petitioner. Hence, being the Manager and head of the Corporation, it is the petitioner who is responsible for the account of the said amount. Regarding initiation of the departmental enquiry is concerned, learned HCGP made submission that it is not the ground to disbelieve the entire case of prosecution when the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant. He submitted that it is necessary to conduct custodial interrogation of the petitioner to know as to whether the petitioner is the only person who was involved in misappropriation of the amount of corporation or others were also involved. Since the Government money is involved, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.
7. Internal audit report prima facie goes to show regarding misappropriation of amount by the petitioner. Position of the petitioner being the Manager of the Corporation is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner is that without holding the other persons responsible, he alone is made scape goat in the said incident, which is not correct. The matter is under investigation. As contended, Rs.26,44,837/- is misappropriated and the said amount was sanctioned by the Government under the minority scheme for the specific purpose. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case to to allow this petition. The petition is accordingly rejected.
8. However, as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that, the petitioner is going to surrender before the concerned court. In case, the petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court, the Presiding Officer is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner, on priority basis, and dispose off the same in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-