Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 537 (KAR)

J. Manjula v. State of Karnataka

2014-06-02

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner -accused No.1 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 arrest of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.89/2014. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.1 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that the auditor has conducted the audit for the period from 05.10.2010 to 31.05.2012. He made the submission that even earlier to the appointment of the present petitioner in the capacity of the Supervisor there are mis-appropriations said to have been committed even according to the auditors report. The counsel made the submission that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the complaint has been registered after two years of the auditor's report for which there is no proper explanation by the prosecution. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that material collected by the prosecution goes to show that the accused Nos.1 and 2 together thereby mis-appropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.18,06,110/-. He made the submission that the present petitioner was also entrusted to the work of collecting the Security Deposit, mess amount and rent amount and she was supposed to remit the same into the bank account opened in the name of institution. He also made the submission that materials clearly goes to show that the auditor's report also make out a case against the present petitioner that she along with accused No.2 mis-appropriated the amount belonging to the institution and thereby committed the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced so also the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced so also the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the appointment order of the present petitioner as a supervisor in the ladies hostel, it is dated 12.11.2010. Perusing the conditions of her appointment at Sl.Nos.1 to 11, there is no specific mention that she has been authorized to collect the security deposit amount, mess amount and also rent amount from the residents of the said hostel and to remit the same into the bank account opened in the name of institution. Even in the grounds of bail petition, the petitioner has denied that she has been entrusted with the said work and it is the contention of the present petitioner that her appointment is only to supervise the activities in the hostel. It is her contention that Administrative Officer -Siddalingaiah, who is arrayed as accused No.2, was collecting the said amount and it is accused No.2, who is responsible to account the said amount. Looking to the materials collected, so also the audit report, it goes to show that the period for starting audit also covered the period even earlier to the period of appointment of the present petitioner i.e., it starts from 5.10.2010, whereas, the present petitioner is appointed on 12.11.2010. Therefore, this matter is to be established during the course of the trial and the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court, they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 6. The petitioner is a women and she has undertaken in the bail petition that she is ready to abide the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. 6. The petitioner is a women and she has undertaken in the bail petition that she is ready to abide the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent -police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.89/2014, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make herself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.