IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6022/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.Nagaraj.N Aged about 51 years, S/o Ningappaiah, Guddenahalli, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagara, Thanneruhalla, Hassan City, Hassan – 573 201. …Petitioner (By Sri.G. Desu Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Halebeedu Police Station Halebeedu, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.Rohith B.J, 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 Cr.No.96/2019 registered by Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the first respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1 in Cr.No.96/2019 of Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of IPC.
3. The complainant by name Sri.B.Shekar Shetty, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Karnataka Gramina Bank, Hassan has lodged a complaint on 01.06.2019 against the petitioner and his family members alleging that when the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in Adaguru Brnach, has collected huge money from the public and got transferred the same to his wife’s and son’s bank account. It is further alleged that the petitioner has mis-appropriated and cheated the bank money to the tune of Rs.27,84,129/-. The preliminary investigation has been done by the Chief-Manager, Audit, Karnataka Gramina Bank and submitted the report. On the basis of which, the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioner.
4. The entire account statement of petitioner’s wife and children discloses that they have acquired huge money but there is no explanation for the same by the petitioner. However, the entire materials i.e., statement of S.B. Account of petitioner, his wife and his son, loan sanction communication along with statement of one Ranjith, loan statement of accounts of Timmegowda and Mogannagowda etc., have already been collected by the Chief Manager-Audit and same are in the custody of the Chief Manager-Audit. Perhaps those materials might have handed over to the investigating agency.
5. Looking to the nature of allegations and facts and circumstances of the case, no materials are produced to show that the petitioner has misappropriated the bank money to the tune of Rs.27,84,129/- and there is no explanation as to how Section 409 of IPC attracts at this stage. However, the same are to be established during the course of full-dressed investigation. Partial investigation has already been done and required materials pertaining to the case have already been collected and report has been submitted to the police.
6. As such, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary; however certain stringent conditions have to be imposed on the petitioner in order to assist the investigating officer to conclude the investigation. Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (accused No.1) shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Cr.No.96/2019 of Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs 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 on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
JS/-
Sd/- JUDGE