Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 41 (KAR)

B. M. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

2014-01-09

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused No. 1 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 409,420, 477A of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 346/2013. The brief facts of the case as per the averments of the complaint that there was difference in clearing collection amount of Syndicate Bank, Bidadi branch to the tune of Rs. 1.87 crores. Since April 2012 various discrepancies are absorbed as unadjusted entries in clearing collection account from 09-04-2012 to 19-09-2013, as the branch Manager neither deposited inward clearing cheques nor return to the service branch. Though the branch Manager and Assistant Manager were looking after the entire transaction, the branch Manager being the custodian of funds of the branch deliberately, dishonestly, fraudulently falsifying the books of account colluding with certain customers and defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs. 2,03,69,000/- and on the basis of the said complaint the case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused No. 1 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The other accused persons were already granted bail by the trial court. The counsel made the submission that the only allegation against the petitioner that whenever the information is sought in respect of the accounts for clearance of the cheques within 12 hours the Branch Manager is suppose to give the information and in this case the Branch Manager has not at all committed any offence. The learned counsel further made the submission that the petitioner is ready to co-operate the investigating officer and by imposing any reasonable conditions petition may be allowed. 4. As against this the learned Government Pleader submitted that the allegations made as against the other accused persons are altogether different from the allegation as against the petitioner accused No. 1. The learned counsel further made the submission that the petitioner is ready to co-operate the investigating officer and by imposing any reasonable conditions petition may be allowed. 4. As against this the learned Government Pleader submitted that the allegations made as against the other accused persons are altogether different from the allegation as against the petitioner accused No. 1. He further submitted that being the Manager of the branch he is the custodian of all the funds of the bank and the allegation as against the petitioner accused No. 1 that without there being any funds in the account even then he has furnished the false information that there is sufficient funds available and thereby cheated the bank to the tune of more than two crores. He further submitted that the matter is still under investigation and hence the petition may be rejected. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the trial court in respect of other accused persons and also the other materials produced in the case. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner No. 1 being the Manager of the branch by furnishing the false information committed fraud to the bank to the tune of more than two crores and petitioner has given the letter dated 03.08.2013 wherein he has stated that Assistant Branch Manager is not responsible for the said Act. The amount involved and as alleged by the prosecution is more than two crores of rupees and the matter is still under investigation. Looking to the nature of the allegations as against the accused persons they are not one and the same. Serious allegations are made as against petitioner accused No. 1. Therefore, the bail order granted by the court in respect of other accused persons will not come to the aid and assistance of the present petitioner. The petitioner has to be interrogated by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Therefore, looking to all these materials on record and the amount involved in the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.