IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.337/2019 BETWEEN:
S. Maharaja S/o RamdasNayak Aged about 49 years Honorary President of Jaggadguru Sri Sri Sri Sevalal Janmasthala Mahaamutt Jeernodhara Samiti Sevalal Temple Committee, R/o S.G. Koppa, Chinnikatte Post, Honnali taluk Dist, Davanagere 577 001 Presently residing at No.601 Narmada Apartment, Mahadev Road, New Delhi-110 002. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Dinesh Kumar. K. Rao, Advocate for Sri. B.S. Prasad, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Nyamati Police Station Honnali Rep. by SPP High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.175/2015 (C.C.No.834/2016) of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Sections 406,408, read with Section 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.10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.834/2016 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Honnali (arising out of Crime No. 175/2015 of Nyamathi Police Station, Davangere) for offences punishable under Sections 406,408, read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the complaint has been filed by the Secretary and President of Janatha Sevalal Janmasthala Mahamutt Jeernoddara Samiti alleging that on 26.3.1986 for the improvement of the Sevalal birth place, committee came into existence and due to increase of devotees from all States, they have taken a decision to keep two hundis in each temple and the said committee to do administration and improvement work. The said Committee noticed that in the two hundis kept in each temple one key was kept with second complainant and the second key was kept with the petitioner-accused No.10, who was the Secretary. During the year 2014- 2015 there was theft, hence as per bye-law all the members and President and Vice-president and Secretary have to participate while opening the said Hundi. On 15.02.2015 and 16.6.2015, they opened the said hundi and deposited the amount in the bank which were collected in the said hundi.
4. It is further alleged that on 13.9.2015, there was no intimation to the President, Vice President and Chief Secretary of the said committee and only one member of the committee namely accused No.10 and five other persons opened both the hundi and they collected the said amount from the hundi and at that time it was said that Rs.70,900/- was collected. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.39,125/- was deposited in the Bank account and Rs.31,775/- was utilized for personal expenses. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were two rival groups. Only one group made two false complaints and it was registered. He further submits that the said hundi was opened and the amount has been deposited to the bank. The petitioner has nothing do with the said transaction. He further submitted that the President of the Trust and the Secretary who is having full power. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged incident. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently argued and submits that petitioner-accused No.10 along with other five persons by following the procedure laid down in the Bye-law of the Trust while opening the hundi and collected the amount and they have only deposited Rs.39,125/- in the bank account and the remaining amount of Rs.31,775/- has been used for their personal expenses, which clearly goes to show that petitioner-accused No.10 and five other persons have misused the remaining amount of the hundi and there is breach of procedure as per Byelaw. There is a prime-facie material to show that petitioner- accused No.10 is likely to be convicted for the said offence. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
8. On close reading of the complaint and other material, it indicate the fact that without following the procedure laid down as per Byelaw of the Trust while opening the hundi, only an amount of Rs.39,125/- has been remitted to the bank and Rs.31,775/- has been utilized for the personal use. It is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.10 that charge-sheet has already been filed. When the charge-sheet has been filed, the presence of the petitioner was not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. The offences leveled against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the said facts and circumstances, if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.834/2016 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Honnali (arising out of Crime No. 175/2015 of Nyamathi Police Station, Davangere) for offences punishable under Sections 406,408, read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.10 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 * Court below.
2. He shall surrender before the * Court below within 15 days from today.
* Corrected vide Court order dated 25.3.2019 3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. They should be regular in attending the Court.
5. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD