IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.9161 OF 2017 BETWEEN JAMES VERKEY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE P.C. VERKEY NO.2005, ANANDA BHAVAN 2ND FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 075 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADV., FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR, ADV.,) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. OF CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.2/2017 OF CHINTAMANI TOWN P.S., CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409, 416, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477, 477(A) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.11 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 416, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477, 477A of IPC registered in the respondent – police station in Crime No.2/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.11 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the allegation in the complaint that the office of the informant received a fixed deposit proposal from accused No.1/ A.Susheela, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chintamani branch dated 15.10.2017 for Rs.10 Crores at the interest rate of 7.5% per year. The Accused No.3 Siraj Ahmed, FDA working as a cashier put up the same and submitted to the Account Superintendent Mir Abbas Ahmed and Asst. Secretary finance, Ijaz Ahmed Baig. Later the informant submitted to their CEO for which CEO passed an order to open fixed deposit in the name of the “Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bengaluru. The further allegation that on 7.12.2016 the Vijaya Bank officials received two cheques amounting totally to the tune of Rs.4,00,45,465/- from accused No.3 and the same is credited to the account of Vijaya bank on 20.12.2016. But the office of the informant has not received any F.D. receipts, hence the accused No.3 contacted the bank officials on 28.12.2016 and on 29.12.2016 the accused No.1/manager has informed that they have transferred the entire realized amount of Rs.4,00,45,465/- to Ajay Sharma Trading Company dated 21.12.2016 on a letter dated 5.12.2016 issued by the office of the informant, wherein it is contended that the informant never issued such a letter, which was forged, hence he sought action against the accused No.1 to 3. On the basis of the said compliant firstly FIR came to be registered only against accused No.1 to 3.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that accused No.11 had applied for a loan of Rs.5 Crores to the Thasildhar and the documents were also submitted in that regard. The further contention of the learned counsel that as the documents were not clear he returned the amount of Rs.2,72,24,926/- to Ajay Sharma Trading Company, so also he return back the car which he has purchased out of the amount. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner is ready to co- operate with the investigating agency as and when called for. He further submits that accused No.1 to 6 have been already granted regular bail and accused No.7 & 8 are granted anticipatory bail. However, the learned HCGP opposed the petition on the ground that by forging the signature the offence has been committed by the present petitioner along with other accused persons. Hence he opposes to grant of bail. It is submitted that the accused persons 1 to 6 are granted regular bail and accused No.7 & 8 are granted anticipatory bail, but the present petitioner was arrested and from the date of arrest up till now he is in the custody. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and all the offences are triable by the Magistrate Court they are not punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Hence, looking to the materials so also the bail order granted in favour of Accused No.1 to 8, I am of the opinion that by imposing conditions he can be admitted to regular bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/ accused No.11 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 416, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477, 477A of IPC registered in the respondent – police station in Crime No.2/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/