Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 249 (KAR)

Suresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-28

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Crime No.129/2019 of Kembhavi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'). 2. One Smt. Nagarathna D/o. Panduranga Olekar, Block Education Officer of Shorapur Taluk is the complainant in Crime No.129/2019 of the respondent Kembhavi Police Station. 3. The summary of the said complaint is that, the present petitioner is the President of S.D.M.C. of Government High School in a place called Malla (B). During the year 2015-16, one Sri.Mehboob M Gabasavalagi was the Head Master of the said School. During the year 2014-15, the Government released grant of Rs.13,00,000/- for construction of two additional class rooms and another sum of Rs.3,01,000/- for construction of a kitchen for the purpose of midday meal. As per the Government circular, any amount more than Rs.2,000/- cannot be drawn in cash under a self cheque and any payment above the said amount has to be made only through cheque, after obtaining bill/voucher. Despite the existence of such a binding circular, the present petitioner being the President of the S.D.M.C. of the said School, drew a sum of Rs.5,84,000/- for himself through twelve different cheques after obtaining signature of the Head Master for them. As such, he has illegally drawn the said huge amount and cheated the Government. The said crime was registered against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. It is in the said crime, the petitioner seeks the relief of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that, even a reading of the complaint and accepting the same on its face value would lead to a great suspicion as to, whether the petitioner has committed the alleged act in violation of the alleged Government circular. The same would be the subject matter of trial. He further submits that even according to the complaint, the amount alleged to have been drawn by the petitioner was through cheques. No where the complainant says that they were self cheques. Moreover, the amount was drawn by the joint signatures and not just by the petitioner alone. The same would be the subject matter of trial. He further submits that even according to the complaint, the amount alleged to have been drawn by the petitioner was through cheques. No where the complainant says that they were self cheques. Moreover, the amount was drawn by the joint signatures and not just by the petitioner alone. Further stating that the apprehension of the accused by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation is not warranted and that the petitioner would co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation, the learned counsel for petitioner prays for allowing the petition. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his statement of Objections as well in his argument submitted that, the investigation is still in progress and the Investigating Officer is yet to collect the evidence, as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. A perusal of the complaint at this stage and prima facie would go to show that the alleged misappropriation of funds and the alleged act of the petitioner attracting Section 409 and 420 would be through certain negotiable instruments, which even according to the prosecution, are not with the petitioner and are available with the Banker upon whom those cheques were drawn. Further there is nothing on record to show by the prosecution that the apprehension of the petitioner/accused is required for any alleged recovery at his instance. There is also no contention from the prosecution that any of the materials or documents are in the custody of the accused and the same can be recovered only after arresting him. In that circumstance, I am of the view that the petitioner who claims to be a permanent resident of the address shown in his petition can be secured for investigation and subsequently for the trial, if it culminates into. As such, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, however, after imposing reasonable conditions in that regard. 7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In case the Police apprehends the petitioner, in their Station Crime No.129/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 409 and 420 of IPC, he be enlarged on bail, subject to the conditions that: i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/ Court. ii) The accused/petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending, within ten days from today. iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and mark his attendance till the final report is filed. iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and materials in any manner. v) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.