IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6760 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.Chetan.S S/o Shivakumar, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.82, Hennagara Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District-562 106.
...Petitioner (By Sri.C.N.Srinath, Advocate for Sri.H.P.Mallegowda, Advocate-Absent) AND:
State of Karnataka By Jigani Police Station, Anekal Taluk – 562 106. Bengaluru Rural District. Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of his arrest in Crime No.129/2018 of Jigani Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S 406, 420 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 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.129/2018 of Jigani Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner have remained absent.
3. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner was honestly working in the complainant Company and he has never misused or misappropriated any funds. He was working as temporary employee in the Company. Without proper verification, the said complaint has been filed. It is further submitted that the company releases the payment to the shop keeper and the shop keeper handed over the phone to the customer. The petitioner neither handled the money nor the commodity. It is further submitted that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused was working as Sales Executive and that while so working, he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and he has made loss to the company and also cheated the general public. The petitioner-accused is absconding and he is not present for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. If he is released on bail, he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and perused the records. On going through the documents produced, it clearly goes to show that the accused person was working in the said company and while so working as Sales Executive on contract basis, he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and committed the alleged offence. Still the investigation is in progress and charge sheet has not yet been filed and he is not available for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. Hence, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused on anticipatory bail. In that light, the petition is dismissed.
In the event, if the petitioner-accused surrenders before the Court below, the trial Court can dispose of the case on merits without taking into consideration the above said observation.
Sd/- JUDGE UN