Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 273 (KAR)

C. Venkatesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-30

P.G.M.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.156/2019 of Harappanahalli police station, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.10.2019, the Regional Manager of Karnataka Grameena Bank, Davangere, filed a complaint before the respondent police. He has stated in the complaint that one K.Govibasappa was having savings Bank account in Nandhi Bevuru Branch, but it was converted as unclaimed account on 31.12.2013. The complainant is working in the said Bank. In the meantime, one A.Karibasappa who is also having savings bank account in the said bank remitted Rs.2,62,440/- to the said savings bank account on 10.01.2017, through NEFT by Axis Bank but by mistake, the said amount was remitted to the account of K.Govibasappa. The Axis Bank authorities requested the complainant to remit the amount to the account of A.Karibasappa. On due enquiry, it was found that Bank officer/accused 1, on 21.04.2017, upgraded his identity as officer, though there was no application, without having any identity card of the customer reopened the SB account 10767100003970. Unfortunately the said Govindabasappa had died on 13.06.2014. Thereafter on 05.05.2017, one Venkatesh moved withdrawal form with respect to the SB account credited to the account and R.K.Mruthyunjaya, who is accused 2 verified and given permission to withdraw the amount. Again on 06.05.2017, Rs.90,000/- drawn through withdrawal form, for which D.Jambanna verified and given approval. Similarly, amount was withdrawn on subsequent dates and in all, a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- was withdrawn by accused 1 to 3 with dishonest intention of grabbing public fund, cheating the Bank and customers by fabricating receipts, bearing signatures of Bank account holders and by creating withdrawal form and committed breach of trust and other evidence. On the said complaint, respondent police registered the case against accused 1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. 3. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused 1 in the complaint has stated that there is delay of 2 years 4 months in filing the complaint. As per the complaint averments, liability cannot be fixed against the petitioner. The amount stated in the complaint that is Rs.1,76,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner and returned to Axis Bank. 3. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused 1 in the complaint has stated that there is delay of 2 years 4 months in filing the complaint. As per the complaint averments, liability cannot be fixed against the petitioner. The amount stated in the complaint that is Rs.1,76,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner and returned to Axis Bank. Therefore, the petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. 5. As per the allegations in the complaint, accused 1 to 3 together have withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- from the account of one Gonibasappa who had died in the year 2014 itself. However, the petitioner has stated that entire amount of Rs.1,76,000/- was recovered from him. It is further submitted that the Bank Authorities have approved the withdrawal of the amount from the bank account. It is not disputed by the prosecution that a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- has been recovered from the account of the petitioner. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the Court of JMFC. It is not disputed that the petitioner is employee in the complainant bank and he is permanent resident of Hospete, Ballary district, having movable and immovable properties. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, as nothing has to be recovered from him. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to imposing necessary conditions to see that he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the investigation. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.156/2019 of Harappanahalli police station, on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating officer, within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.156/2019 of Harappanahalli police station, on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating officer, within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ii) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. iii) The petitioner shall not cause threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall cooperate in the investigation. iv) The petitioners shall mark his attendance before the SHO of Harappannahalli police station on every 4th Sunday of the month from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filing of final report or for a period of 3 months whichever is earlier.