IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.1030-1031/2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. S. BHASKARAN, S/O LATE R. G. SUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER, CREDIT REVIEW DEPARTMENT STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, MAFATAL CEBTRE NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021.
2. T. CHANDRASEKARAN S/O A.S.THIAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RISK GLBOAL MARKETS STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTRE, 14 FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGANAND S.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIKRAM U.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560025.
REPRESENTED BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR.
2. E. B. SREEDHARA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, INVESTIGATION OFFICER, EOD, CID, CARLTON PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 9.1.2019) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 IN C.C.NO.32746/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A, INSOFAR AS THE ISSUANCE OF NON- BAILABLE WARRANTS AGAISNT THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Though these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, with consent of the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the State, they are taken up for disposal.
2. Shri Naganand, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as General Manager and Deputy General Manager respectively with State Bank of India. A complaint was lodged by M/s Metal Closures Private Limited on 16.7.2015 against it’s employees alleging commission of certain offences. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.486/2015 was registered in Ashoknagar Police Station on 22.7.2015. After investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet in which petitioners are shown as accused No.7 and 8 respectively.
3. Shri Naganand further submits that without issuing summons, the learned Trial Judge has issued Non-bailable Warrants against petitioners based on the office note put up by the Trial Court that Accused No.4, 5 and 7 to 34 were absconding.
4. Shri Naganand placing reliance on paragraphs No.51 to 53 in Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others1 contended that issuance of Non- bailable Warrants without issuing summons is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court.
5. The facts narrated by the learned senior advocate for the petitioners are not disputed by Shri S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP.
1 (2007) 12 SCC 1 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned senior advocate for petitioners and perused the records.
7. The office note made on 13.12.2018 in Trial Court’s proceedings shows that Accused No.4,5 and 7 to 34 were absconding. Probably, the learned Trial Judge has issued Non-bailable Warrants against petitioners based on the office note. Petitioners are holding posts of General Manager and Deputy General Manager in State Bank of India. According to Shri Naganand, the petitioners have joined investigation and Police have recorded their statements.
8. In the circumstances, issuance of Non-bailable Warrants at the first instance without issuing summons is unsustainable in law.
9. Resultantly, these petitions merit consideration and accordingly they are allowed. The order dated 13.12.2018 in C.C. No.32746/2018 (Annexure-A) pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar as the issuance of Non-bailable Warrants against the petitioners herein (accused No.7 and 8) is set aside.
10. At this stage, Shri Naganand submits that petitioners may be permitted to move the learned Trial Judge to seek regular bail. He further submits that in view of the impugned order, petitioners apprehend that should there is any delay in considering the bail application for want of objections to be filed by the Public Prosecutor, there could be threat of detention, pending consideration of bail application.
11. In the circumstances, it is directed that petitioners shall voluntarily appear before the Trial Court on 18.1.2019 by serving the copy of bail application on the Public Prosecutor two days in advance. The Trial Court shall consider the bail application on the same day and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
12. As prayed for, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order taking cognizance of offences by the learned Magistrate, in separate petitions, if they are so advised.
13. The Writ Petitions are allowed with the above observations.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-