Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1551 (KAR)

Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

2022-12-02

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.35/2022 of Kothanur Police Station, Sampigehalli Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 474, 415, 416, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. This Court, earlier rejected the bail petition of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.5529/2022 vide order dated 07.07.2022. While rejecting the petition, this Court in Para No.6 has observed that the accused No.1 has transferred an amount of Rs.2 Crores to the account of this petitioner and this petitioner has misappropriated the public money to the tune of Rs.2 Crores. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is not the Manager and the accused No.1 is the Clerk working in Karnataka Bank and he had misused his powers and drawn the amount and even though the accused No.1 had transferred the amount to the account of this petitioner, this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.1, making an observation that accused No.1 had played the role in transferring the amount and withdrawing the amount and hence, this petitioner, who is similarly placed as that of accused No.1 is also entitled for bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that an amount of Rs.2 Crores was transferred to the account of this petitioner and accused No.1 had indulged in drawing the amount from his account and this petitioner has also drawn the amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the amount which was transferred by accused No.1. Hence, the presence of the petitioner is necessary. 6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, the presence of the petitioner is necessary. 6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet is also filed. The allegation against this petitioner is that, he joined hands along with accused No.1 in transferring the amount and this petitioner had also indulged in withdrawing the amount and accused No.1 had also indulged in withdrawing the amount from the account of this petitioner and during the investigation, it has come to light that this petitioner had drawn an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and this petitioner is in custody from the last 9 months. Having taken note of the role played by accused No.1 and this Court in similar circumstances, enlarged accused No.1 on bail and though the entire amount of Rs.2 Crores was transferred to the account of this petitioner, during the course of investigation, it has emerged that only an amount of Rs.25 lakhs is drawn by this petitioner, hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:- ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.35/2022 of Kothanur Police Station, Sampigehalli Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 474, 415, 416, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.