IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1692/2019 BETWEEN:
Ramesh Nadukar, S/o.Shambulinga Nadukar, Aged about 34 years, Residing at Muniraju Building, 2nd Cross, Lakshmi Layout, Koodlugate, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 102.
Native of:
Yalavanthike Village, Maisalaga Post, Basavakalyana Taluk, Bidar District-585 327. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Tejas.N, Adv.,) AND:
State of Karnataka by Bandepalya Police Station, Bengaluru-560 068.
(Represented by learned State Public Prosecutor) High Court Complex, Bengaluru-01. ... Respondent (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.87/2018 (C.C.No.27396/2018) of Bandepalya P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 408, 420, 120B, 381, 212 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.87/2018 of Bandepalya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 120(B), 381, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the petitioner/accused No.1 was working as custodian in C.M.S. company. During the period from 26.03.2018 to 28.03.2018, he had received a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- from the said company in order to remit the same to different ATMs. Subsequently on verification, the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.62,01,900/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner/accused No.1 and the said amount has not been remitted to the ATM counters. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is a typed complaint. The transaction which is said to have been taken place has been mentioned in the complaint has occurred in between 26.03.2018 to 28.03.2018, but the complaint is prepared prior to the said transaction on 22.03.2018 that itself, creates a doubt in the genesis of the case of the prosecution. Only with an malafide intention, the said complaint has been registered. The petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to be released on bail. Further it is submitted that the recoveries have been done at the instance of the other accused persons. But no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.23 lakhs has been recovered from Manohar Patnayak, but not from the possession of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered before the Court and since from 04.08.2018, he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of interrogation or investigation and submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the main accused and he is the master-mind behind all the activities and he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.62,01,900/- from the complainant company. It is further submitted that the safety key and other materials, which are going to be used for the purpose of filling the amount to the ATMs, are also recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.1. Still the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner/accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint, it indicates that in the said complaint it is alleged that when the audit was conducted on 01.04.2018 for the period from 26.03.2018 to 28.03.2018, they found that the petitioner/accused No.1 has misappropriated an amount of Rs.62,01,900/- but the complaint itself has been prepared on 22.03.2018 that also creates a doubt. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already accused Nos.3 to 6 have been released on bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. Whether the petitioner has actually misappropriated the said amount or not? is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of discussions held by me above, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.87/2018 of Bandepalya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 120(B), 381, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial.
VBS Sd/- JUDGE