IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.843/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. BINAY KUMAR S/O. LATE MAHENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT: SF-4, BLOCK-A AJANTA ROYAL APARTMENT NEAR METRO WHOLE SALE BERANTENA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 100. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT 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.13/2019 OF HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 417 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13/2019 of Hebbagodi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the compliant is that the complainant is working as a Managing Director in Mahendra Homes Private Limited. They used to construct apartments and sell the same by taking various projects. The petitioner/accused was appointed as a Project General Manager to manage and handle their projects. The petitioner was working as a Project General Manager in their Company from 01.04.2013 to 30.08.2018. While petitioner was working, he used to procure the tiles, wood frames and shutter, wire, lime paste, bags, basement waste and material. Without utilizing the said construction materials properly, he misused the said materials worth Rs.12,22,994/- thereby he cheated the Company and caused loss. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the accused/petitioner.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner/accused was working as a Project Manager and he used to manage and look after the projects of their company. He further submits that he was not in a position to procure all the materials and was not incharge of the said articles and goods. He further submitted that due to ill-health of his mother he had been to his native place and there was a financial crunch and the projects were progressing at a very slow pace. At that time there was a demand by the clients who entrusted the work. In order to escape from this, the complainant lodged false complaint against the petitioner/accused. It is further submitted that the dispute is civil in nature and the petitioner-accused took steps to take the possession of the premises and to recover the salaries due to him by approaching Parappana Agrahaara Police. Hence, complainant lodged false complaint against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Project General Manager in Mahindra Homes Private Limited and he used to procure the articles for the use of the said projects and the same has been entrusted. Thereafter with a malafide intention he has not used the said articles and construction materials, thereby he misappropriated amount of Rs.12,22,994/- and there is clear evidence to show about the endorsement and misutilization of the articles and construction materials. He further submitted that if the accused-petitioner is released on bail, he may not available for investigation or interrogation and he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced in this behalf.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was working as a Project General Manager in the Mahendra Homes Private Limited Company and was managing all the projects of the Company from 01.04.2013 to 30.08.2018. The facts being so, the only question arises that whether the petitioner/accused was incharge of purchasing or procurement of the said goods and the same has been entrusted to him and despite supplying of all the goods worth Rs.12,22,994/-, he has not used the same properly and misutilized the same, thereby he misappropriated the said amount and caused loss to the Company? All these facts have to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial and alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. 5 8. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13/2019 of Hebbagodi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Agency is directed to enlarge him on bail on executing 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 Investigating Officer.
2. He shall surrender before the Investigation Agency within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission 5. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station till charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-