Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 527 (KAR)

H K Sathish Chandra v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-29

V.SRISHANANDA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Sridhar A. G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Present petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the petitioner/accused No.5 most respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.5 on bail in C.C. No.114/2020 (Crime No.217/2017 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Court, Channapatna, Ramanagara District, which is registered by Akkur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 419, 420, 465 r/w 34 of IPC in the event of his arrest, along with granting other necessary reliefs in the circumstance of the petition in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Basavaraju S/o. Late Siddabasappa filed a complaint with Akkur Police Station on 12/10/2017, which was registered in Crime No.217/2017 for the offences punishable under Sec. 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). 4. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that the present petitioner was involved in a financial scam where he did not bestow his proper attention and he is negligent in discharging his duty as a bank manger and whereby bank is put to financial loss and therefore, sought for action. After registering the case, the complaint was initially filed as a private complaint and thereafter, referred to the police and thereafter, the police are investigating the matter. Petitioner is shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet. 5. Thereafter, petitioner approached the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, which was turned down by order dtd. 4/3/2022 in Crl.Misc. No.152/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition Sri. Sridhar A.G., learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a retired bank employee and he has discharged his duty in a proper manner as per the guidelines for sanction of the loan and he has been falsely implicated in the case and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 9. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal, it is admitted fact that the loan has been sanctioned and the loanee has become defaulter. Based on the private complaint filed by Sri. Basappa and Sri. Basavaraju, the police registered a case for the aforesaid offences and investigating the matter and filed the charge sheet. The allegation is against the petitioner is that he was negligent in discharging his duty. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is not available to the Investigating Agency from the date of registration of the case and therefore, he has been shown as absconding accused. The attempt made by the petitioner having been turned down by the learned District Judge, the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Since the petitioner is a retired bank official and whether at all, he was involved in the alleged financial scam or not is to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Custodial investigation is also necessary even though if charge sheet is filed. Accordingly, directing the present petitioner to join the investigation and to undergo limited period of custodial investigation would meet the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, without further discussion on the merits of the matter, this Court passes the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Agency on 6/4/2023 at about 10.00 a.m. 3. Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the accused / Petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day, before 6.00 p.m. if any materials are elicited in the custodial investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file an additional/supplementary charge sheet as is contemplated under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency in furnishing his handwriting signature and as such, other details as is required by the Investigating Officer. After custodial investigation, the petitioner be enlarged on bail, on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 4. Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency. 5. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. After custodial investigation, the petitioner be enlarged on bail, on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 4. Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency. 5. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly. 7. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of 'Mandya and Ramanagara District' without prior permission. If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order. Ordered accordingly.