IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7529/2017 Between:
Sri Kodandarama S/o Sri Late Narayanappa Aged about 51 years Working as Grade-II Secretary & Incharge PDO Chaldiganahalli Grama Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli Srinivasapur Taluk – 563 135 ...Petitioner (By Sri Raghu M.V., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Srinivasapura Police Represented by The State Public Prosecutor High Court of buildings Bengaluru - 560 001 ...Respondent (By Sri Chetan Desai, 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 Crime No.268/2017 of Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 420 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 420 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.268/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are, the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Srinivasapura lodged a written complaint stating that one Kodandarama i.e., the petitioner herein, Secretary Grade-II, incharge Panchayath Development Officer of Chaldiganahalli Grama Panchayath, during that period, has committed and misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,34,158.00 sanctioned in the 14th Finance Scheme for a specific project. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered as against the present petitioner.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that, there is no misappropriation of the amount as alleged by the prosecution. In this regard, he submitted that there is a resolution under which permission is taken for spending the amount. Hence, learned counsel submitted that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. False allegations are made against him. Hence, the learned counsel sought to allow the petition and to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that, the amount sanctioned by the Government for a specific project to the Grama Panchayath has been misappropriated by the present petitioner without following norms and rules under the said Scheme. It is also his submission that there is misappropriation of government amount to the tune of Rs.6,34,1583.00. Petitioner has been already kept under suspension, departmental enquiry also is initiated against him. Investigation of the case is still going on. Hence, he submits that at this stage, it is not a case to grant anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials on record so also the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Looking to the materials on record, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the amount was sanctioned to the Grama Panchayath under a specific Scheme, but the said amount which was assigned under the 14th Finance Scheme was not utilized as per the scheme. There is a misappropriation of the said amount. The investigation is going on and Departmental Enquiry is initiated against the petitioner. Investigating officer is also conducting investigation in the matter. Looking to these aspects of the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the case and it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KMV*