IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.496 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
STATE BY (DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/POLICE INSPECTOR, SURATHKAL POLICE STATION), F.I.U., C.I.D., BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI ROHIT B J, HCGP) AND:
MR. MANU BHOLA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SURAJ KUMAR BHOLA, R/AT NO.50/A, PURNA DAS ROAD, DRAPANA APARTMENT, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700029. …RESPONDENT **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT ON 06.08.2018 IN CRL.MISC.NO.755/2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, IN CRIME NO.276/2017 OF SURATHKAL POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 417, 420, 424, 468 AND 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE RESPONDENT BE TAKEN TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard and perused the records.
2. The State has filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crime No.276/2017 vide order dated 6.8.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.755/2018 in favour of the respondent for the offence under Sections 409, 417, 420, 424, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On careful perusal of the petition averments and also the orders passed by the trial Court, there is no allegation that the respondent has violated any of the conditions imposed by the trial Court. The allegations made against the respondent as per the complaint averments that Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited has lodged a complaint stating that the respondent was working in the said institution and he has transferred lot of amount from the Corporation to different branches without any orders or without any sufficient reasons, thereby it is alleged that he has misappropriated the funds of the institution. Considering the allegations made and the offences invoked by the police, the Court has granted Anticipatory Bail with certain stringent conditions.
4. As the bail order was granted on 6.8.2018, more than one year has already been elapsed, the respondent is enjoying the fruits of the bail and there is no violation of any of the conditions. Therefore, cancellation of bail condition is not maintainable without there being violation of any conditions.
5. Under the above said circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. As the petition is dismissed at the order stage itself there is no necessity to issue any notice to the respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl