Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1620 (KAR)

Gopi S/o. Subramani v. State of Karnataka

2017-12-06

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2017
ORDER : This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Gandhi Nagar P.S. Ballari in Crime No.111/2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 477, 474, 381, 10B, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein. 2. The complaint filed by the complainant before the respondent – Police alleging that on 20.06.2017 at about 02:30 p.m. namely H.M. Shafee, the Accounts Shirestedar of the Court of the Principal Senor Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari received a telephonic message that one Gopi S/o. Subramani of Bengaluru had presented FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-, deposited in O.S. No.95/2011 for encashment from the Manager of SBM Branch at Ballari. Immediately after receipt of an information, the complainant visited the bank and found that the person presented FD receipt dated 03.04.2012 in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- for encashment along with a letter/fake order of the Court. The official of the said Court intimated the same to the concerned Presiding Officer, as the concerned Presiding Officer wrote a letter to the Bank not to honour the FD in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- and withheld the said document which produced along with the said FD receipt for the purpose of encashment. On receipt of a complaint, the respondent – Police registered a case in Crime No.111/2017 for the aforesaid alleged offences. Thereafter, proceeded with the case for investigation. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 381, 120(B), 511 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.2 and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 381, 120(B), 511 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.2 and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments relating to the case in Crime No.111/2017 that the accused alleged to be associated with other accused to commit the alleged offences by generating fake document and the FD receipt was presented for encashment in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- which was deposited in O.S. No.95/2011. As this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.2 and there is no role made by this accused and that other accused in committing the alleged offence by generating the fake document relating to the FD receipt obtained and also made venturing for encashment of the said FD amount. But this accused has been implicated in the alleged crime by setting up a theory, but there are no prima facie materials against the accused in committing the alleged offences. 5. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused after completing the entire investigation by securing the documents relating to the offences which lugged against the accused. Therefore, the accused does not required to the Investigating Agency in any further, as the accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest and the accused is the only source for the family, consisting his old aged parents and if the accused supposed to be kept behind the bar for longer period, the dependants, such as, school going children and also old aged parents will loose the bread winner as well will be ruined in the society. This fact is requires to be considered apart from other grounds urged that there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused in order to cheat the concerned authorities by obtaining the fake order for encashment of the FD receipt by presenting the same to the concerned bank in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. 6. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned HCGP vehemently contended by reiterating the averments made in the complaint as well as the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused in C.C. No.1458/2017 relating to the case in Crime No.111/2017 of Gandhi Nagar P.S. Ballari which is relating to the criminal breach of trust and misappropriate of the FD amount in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-. 7. The 1st accused who said to be the Government Servant by discharging his duty in the said Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari, as the FD in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- which was deposited in O.S. No.95/2011 and same has been presented by this petitioner-accused No.2 in colluding with other accused for encashment from the Manager of the SBM Branch at Ballari. Soon after receipt of an information telephonically from the concerned branch about the accused presenting the FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- for encashment, on the basis of the instructions given by the Presiding Officer of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari that the documents which were presented by the accused for seeking encashment of the FD amount of Rs.54,32,000/- came to be seized. 8. Subsequently, based on a complaint filed by the Chief Ministerial Officer, office of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari, the case in Crime No.111/2017 came to be registered, as wherein this accused as well as other accused were hatching a plan for producing the fake order generating for encashment of the FD receipt that too be the huge amount in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- which was deposited in O.S. No.95/2011. All these materials which were borne out in the charge sheet it is laid against the accused in C.C. No.1458/2017, as wherein the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and so also conducting the mahazar, it is in the presence of panch witnesses and same has been seen in the charge sheet which is laid against the accused, as where the accused is said to be facing of trial for the alleged offences. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the accused. 9. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the accused. 9. As already been stated in detail about the contention which is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relating to the case in Crime No.111/2017 of Gandhi Nagar P.S., Ballari, as wherein the accused Shivanand working as SDA in the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, who was assisting the Accounts Shirestedar of that Court and given a written confession letter, wherein he has admitted regarding his guilt in respect of the misconduct and also criminal breach of trust as that misappropriate of funds. 10. The complaint which is filed by the complainant being the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari relating to the case in criminal breach of trust and misappropriate of the FD amount in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-, as this FD which had kept in deposit in O.S. No.95/2011, as wherein the case is yet to be adjudicated between the plaintiff and defendant. But the said FD amount it has been made venturing for encashment by generating fake order. But on 20.06.2017 at about 02:30 p.m. one H.M. Shafee, the Accounts Shirestedar of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari who got telephonic information that one person namely Gopi S/o. Subramani along with one of the Advocate of Bengaluru presented FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- which deposited in O.S. No.95/2011 and same has been presented for encashment with fake release order of the Court. On receipt of information from the official, who had briefed the said information to the concerned official of the Court, as wherein the case in O.S. No.95/2011 is pending for adjudicaton. Subsequent to the information got by the Presiding Officer, who made correspondence in a letter to the SBM Branch at Ballari not to honour the aforesaid FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- and to withdraw the said documents produced along with the said FD receipt. Subsequent to the information got by the Presiding Officer, who made correspondence in a letter to the SBM Branch at Ballari not to honour the aforesaid FD receipt in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- and to withdraw the said documents produced along with the said FD receipt. But this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.2 had hatched a plan with other accused to take out the FD receipt in O.S. No.95/2011 by generating the fake document in order to release the amount in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- and same has been seen in the material allegation of the complaint so also the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused in C.C. No.1458/2017 arouse in Crime No.111/2017 of Gandhi Nagar P.S. Ballari, wherein the accused are involved in heinous offences that too be generating the fake release order of the Court for made venturing encash the FD amount in a sum of Rs.54,32,000/-. 11. Therefore, at this stage, it is said that there are no justifiable grounds as urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the relief of bail. 12. Having regard to the heinous offences said to be committed by the said accused are concerned, it is said that if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. 13. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as in the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused does not deserve for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.