Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 539 (KAR)

R. K. Mruthyunjaya v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-25

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this court aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete in Cri.Misc.P.No.5398/2019 and other connected matters. It arises from the case registered by Hanarapanahalli Police in Crime No.156/2019 for the alleged the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468 r/w Sec 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one K. Goni Basappa was having bank account bearing S.B. Account bearing No.10767100003970 in the Nandibevoor Branch of Axis Bank, which was converted into unclaimed account on 31.12.2013. One Sri. A. Karibasappa is also having S.B. Account bearing No.10676100003979. On 10.01.2017, an amount of Rs.2,62,440/- was remitted to the account of said A. Karibasappa through NEFT by Axis Bank. But by mistake, the said amount was remitted to the account of Goni Basappa. Realising the mistake, Axis Bank authorities, called up the complainant and requested to transfer the said amount to the account of Karibasappa. 3. On due enquiry, the complainant found that one Bank officer viz., Venkatesh accused No.1 had by himself upgraded his identity and re-opened the unclaimed account of Sri. K.Goni Basappa who had died on 13.06.2014 and thereafter, he withdrew the amounts from Sri. K. Goni Basappas account. It is on the above facts that the complainant filed a complaint stating that the withdrawals done by accused No.1 were certified and verified by accused No.3 and the petitioner, who is accused No.2 verified and gave permission to withdraw the amount. It is only an account of such verification and approval that accused No.1 was able to withdraw the money from the deceased K. Goni Basappas account. On the above basis, a complaint was filed stating that the accused colluding with others, in order to grab the monies of the bank and its customers, have fabricated the receipts, falsely created withdrawal forms, committed breach of trust by violating the terms and conditions of the Bank, etc., 4. The petitioner along with the other two accused persons approached III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari as stated above for bail. The petitioner along with the other two accused persons approached III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari as stated above for bail. The trial court being of the opinion that now-a-days there are several offences which are committed involving banks and these offences of forgery have resulted in severe economic losses both to the country and to the individuals, held that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail and dismissed those petitions. 5. Sri. Gopalakrishna Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that subsequent to the rejection of the petition by the trial court, accused No.1 Venkatesh has repaid the entire amount to bank, who in turn transferred it to the account of Sri.A. Karibasappa. Sri. Gopalakrishna Kolli submits that it is only accused No.1 who had committed the offences complained off. The petitioner being accused No.2 had only cleared the fabricated forms presented to him by accused No.1- Venkatesh and he had no manner of knowing that those challans had in fact been fabricated by accused No.1. Accused No.2 in usual course believed the challans which have been placed before him by accused No.1 to be genuine since he also considered him to be a responsible Officer of the bank. On the basis of the above, he contends that the petitioner is not guilty of any offences and therefore, ought to be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned HCGP opposes the said prayer contending that investigation is still under progress, charge sheet has not been filed without the involvement of accused No.2 crime as alleged to be committed by accused No.1 could not have been committed and therefore, the complicity of accused No.2 in the said crime is apparent on record. 7. Having heard Sri. Gopalakrishna Kolli and learned HCGP and having perused the complaint, it is seen that there are no allegations, which have been made as against accused No.2 having derived any financial benefit from the above offences. The entire financial benefit is derived by accused No.1 who has apparently returned the amounts to the bank, who was in turn transferred to the account of Sri. A. Karibasappa. Prima facie at this stage, it does not appear to be any overt-act which is alleged against accused No.2, the petitioner herein to establish his involvement in the crime alleged against him. 8. A. Karibasappa. Prima facie at this stage, it does not appear to be any overt-act which is alleged against accused No.2, the petitioner herein to establish his involvement in the crime alleged against him. 8. In view of the above, this court deems it to fit and proper to enlarge accused No.2 on bail. Hence, I pass the following ORDER The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.156/2019 subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the event of his arrest; ii. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall co-operate with the investigating officer during investigation; iii. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses; iv. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall appear before the Court of law on all the dates of hearing; v. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. vi. The petitioner accused No.2 shall furnish a list of immovable property said to be owned by him. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands canceled. The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter without being influence by this order.