Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Kadappa vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|18 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.7615/2019 BETWEEN SRI. KADAPPA AGED 67 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI. KEMPAIAH RESIDING AT NO.26/11, 2ND MAIN MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. GOPI, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.307/2019 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFEENCE P/U/S 406 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.32 in Cr.No.307/2019 of respondent-Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 109 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant by name Sri. Malathesha Guddappa Mudenoora son of Guddppa, lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police Station against the Hemagiri Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Limited Kamakshipalya, Bangalore (‘Society’, for short), stating that the complainant referred order No.RCS/OTS-1/102/2018-19 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, office of the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Bangalore and the Factual Report No.ARB-1/ Section 64/CR.2/2018-19 dated 28.06.2019 and order No.RCS/OTS-1/102/2018-19 dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Additional Registrar of Co- operative Societies, office of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Bangalore, issuing directions to file a criminal case against the President, the Directors and the Chief Executive Officers of the said Society. It is further alleged that, the complaints have been received from the depositors for non-refund of deposits by the said society. The Deputy Director, Range-I, Bangalore Urban District, has furnished a factual report stating that, the members of the said Society have filed a complaint stating that, they invested money in the Society under various Schemes like Pigmies, RD, FD on various dates and the society has not returned the deposits even after maturity. Further, it is also alleged that, audit of the accounts of the society has not been done for the years 2014-15 to 2018-19. It is further alleged that the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Administrator of the Society, the Managing Committee and the Board of Directors are responsible to comply with Rules and Regulations of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act’, for short) and by not complying with the said Rules and Regulations, the accused persons have cheated the depositors and public at large.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and a false case was foisted against him. He further states that, due to the force of the President of the said society, the petitioner became a member of the society and later became Vice President of the Society and the petitioner attended the meeting of the said society only once on 01.10.2015 and thereafter, he has not attended the meeting. After the death of the President of the society, he has resigned for the post of Vice President on 03.11.2017. Therefore, he is not responsible for the alleged act, as the alleged offences being committed by the other Directors. He further submits that, the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish solvent surety and he is ready to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.9 in the FIR and he has also produced the copy of the resignation letter of the petitioner for the post of Vice President on 03.11.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, this Court has already granted anticipatory bail for Accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.6801/2019 vide order dated 22.08.2019. He further submits that, when he was not the Director of the said Society, he had also invested some money in the Society.
6. Be that as it may. The role of the petitioner in the alleged incident has to be established during the course of full-dressed trial. Moreover, the aforesaid offences are not punishable either with death or life imprisonment. As it is stated that Accused No.3 was already released on bail and this petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner, on the ground of parity, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A.32)-Kadappa shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.307/2019 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 109 of Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the concerned Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute his personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the I.O., till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days i.e., on 2nd and 4th Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period for two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
KGR* SD/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Kadappa vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
18 November, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra