IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.373/2019 BETWEEN:
STATE BY (POLICE INSPECTOR, SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, F.I.U., C.I.D., BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP.) AND:
VARIS KISHOR RUPABHINDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O KISHOR RUPA BHINDA, R/AT 24/B, MANILAL CHHAGANLAL, RANI SAT MARG, KHOT DONGRI, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI – 400 0097. ... RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 03-12-2019 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT ON 12.04.2018 IN CRL. MISC.NO.186/2018 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 SECTION 409, 417, 420, 424, 468 AND 471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BE TAKEN TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Notice to be issued to the respondent is dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State. Perused the records.
3. The present petition is filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru with reference to Crime No.276/2017 registered by Surathkal Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 417, 420, 424, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.186/2018.
4. The allegation made in the FIR is referable to the Managers of Indian Overseas Bank and its branches situated at Kulia at Mangaluru. The allegation is that the amount which was released with reference to different schemes by the Government has been misused by the authorities of the said Bank by transferring the said amounts to the persons who are not actually the beneficiaries. The respondent claiming himself to be one of the legal beneficiaries has approached the Trial Court apprehending arrest at the hands of the police. Considering the factual aspect and also that his name does not find place in the FIR, the Trial Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent on certain conditions.
5. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent has violated any of the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. There is no allegation that the respondent is not co-operating with the investigating agency for concluding the investigation. There is no material placed before the Court to show that during the course of investigation, police found the respondent as culprit and he is required for further interrogation and therefore, anticipatory bail granted deserves to be cancelled. In the absence of such material before the Court, in my opinion, the bail granted exercising discretionary power by the Trial Court should not normally be interfered with.
Under the above said circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS