Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 954 (KAR)

Manjunatha S. v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-22

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No. 67/2022 registered by Chitradurga Extension Police Station, Chitradurga, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 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. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and her husband were working as Director in NterOne company which is located at M.G. Road, Bengaluru and they were running a trust called Winsi Foundation in order to do social service in the residence itself. The husband and wife used to visit Basava Mantapa which is located at Rajajinagara and in the month of November, 2021, they came in contact with Manjunatha from Hosadurga i.e., the present petitioner and came to know about the social work that the complainant and her husband are doing and in turn, he informed that he is running an academy for poor students and also giving training for students in computer and his friend one Praveen Kumar is running an institution and they are giving free training in computer and spoken English for a period of three months and the Government will release an amount of Rs. 3,500/- each to 150 students, in total Rs. 5,25,000/- and the same would be the training expenses and also the investment for trust and requested to invest the money for the said trust and believing the same, informed 38 computer training centers and revealed the assurance given by this petitioner and instructed to secure 150 students and also instructed to collect an amount of Rs. 100/- as admission fee and asked to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each as franchisee amount as advance and believed the same and collected an amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- and also an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each and in all, made the payment of Rs. 7,60,000/- and amount was transferred to the account of this petitioner and also given an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards expenses for inauguration but, this petitioner and other accused cheated the complainant. Based on the complaint, the police have registered for the case invoking the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. 7,60,000/- and amount was transferred to the account of this petitioner and also given an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards expenses for inauguration but, this petitioner and other accused cheated the complainant. Based on the complaint, the police have registered for the case invoking the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is working with accused No. 2 and he is an employee and whenever the amount is transferred to the account of this petitioner, in turn, this petitioner has transferred the amount to the account of accused No. 2 as a duty bound employee of accused No. 2 and he not misused any amount and not committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and fraud. However, this petitioner is having an apprehension of arrest since, accused No. 2 is already arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed the documents regarding transferring of amount to the account of accused No. 2 along with statement of account i.e., from November, 2021 onwards and the contact developed between the complainant, this petitioner as well as accused No. 2. The counsel also would submit that the amount received by this petitioner has been transferred to the account of accused No. 2. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that the accused No. 2 is already arrested and the matter is under investigation and this petitioner as well as accused No. 2 indulged in committing an offence of criminal breach of trust and this petitioner only introduced accused No. 2. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. 6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the allegations made in the complaint, while granting anticipatory bail, this Court has to look into the contents of the complaint and no doubt, this petitioner only introduced the accused No. 2, but payment was made to this petitioner and in turn, this petitioner has transferred the amount to the account of accused No. 2. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the statement of account which discloses payment of amount in favour of accused No. 2 on different dates. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the statement of account which discloses payment of amount in favour of accused No. 2 on different dates. When such being the material on record, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, 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 shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 67/2022 registered by Chitradurga Extension Police Station, Chitradurga, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a 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 concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.