Karnataka High Court
Sujata W/O Venkatachalapathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2014
Author: B Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRL.P NO 200979 OF 2014
BETWEEN
SUJATA
W/O VENKATACHALAPATHI
AGE : 51 YRS.
OCC : PDO, PRESENTLY WORKING AT
SANNUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ & DIST : GULBARGA
R/O : LIG-101, 3RD PHASE
BADEPUR COLONY
GULBARGA ... PETITIONER
(By SMT.ANURADHA DESAI - ADV. FOR
Sri.MAHANTESH DESAI - ADV. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA P.S,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL.S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.S S KUMMAN - SPL.PP FOR)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE CONCERNED POLICE TO RELEASE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN
CRIME NO.09/2014 (FIR NO. 41/2014) OF LOKAYUKTA POLICE
STATION OF GULBARGA, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SS.13 (1)(c)(d) R/W 13 (2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeks to grant her anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.9/14 of Lokayuktha Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(c)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the FIR, order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting her bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the order dated 26.9.2014 passed in FIR 41/14 (Crime No.9/14) granting bail in favour of co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as PDO, Kellur Grama Panchayath since 3 2010 and she has not misappropriated any kind of fund belonging to the said panchayath. She is falsely involved in the case at the instance of persons who are inimical towards her. He further submits that her husband is suffering from paralysis and there is nobody, except her, to look after him. Since the respondent/police are visiting her house and the office to arrest her in connection with the aforesaid case, she is not in a position either to look after her husband or to attend the office.
She further submits as per the allegation made in the complaint lodged by a leader of a Raitha Sangha a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- belonging to the Panchayath is alleged to have been misappropriated by five persons including the petitioner and the previous complaint filed by the respondent in connection with the same allegation has been closed holding that there is no misappropriation and now the prosecution has to establish their case based on the records of the panchayath relating to the alleged misappropriation. She 4 submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed while granting anticipatory bail.
4. Sri.Kumman, learned counsel appearing for the police, submits petitioner is mainly responsible for the misappropriation of funds belonging to the Panchayath, she is the main accused and therefore, if she is granted anticipatory bail, she has got every chances of manipulating the records and she may not appear not appear before the police. Further, if she is granted anticipatory bail she would not cooperate with the respondent for investigating the crime and therefore her request for anticipatory bail may be rejected.
5. Perusal of the records, complaint and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. disclose that respondent/police have registered a case against the petitioner and four other persons based on the complaint lodged by the leader of a Raitha Sangha of that locality. 5
According to the prosecution there are five accused. A5 who is working as Assistant Agricultural Officer was apprehended by the respondent-police and produced before the jurisdictional Sessions Court and thereafter he has been released on bail. From the allegation made in the FIR petitioner and four other persons had misappropriated the amount belonged to the Panchayath during the year 2010-11. In the complaint it is stated that previous complaint registered against the petitioner and A5-Siddramappa in respect of the same misappropriation has been closed holding that there is no misappropriation.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, misappropriation pertains to the year 2010 & 11 of Kellur panchayath. At present the petitioner is working as a PDO at Sannur Panchayath, therefore, there is no apprehension that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail she would tamper the records pertaining to the alleged misappropriation and further the apprehension of the prosecution that if she is 6 granted bail, she may not appear before the police, can be safe guarded by imposing stringent conditions. -
6. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is released on bail, subject to following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent/police within 30 days from today and the respondent/police shall arrest and release her on bail subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not visit to Keroor Grama panchayath till the filing of the charge sheet by the respondent/police.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent/police as and when required for 7 the purpose of investigation of the crime without fail.
iv) The petitioner shall deposit a cash security of Rs.75,000/- before the Special Court within 30 days from today. The Court in turn is directed to invest the same in fixed deposit in any Nationalised bank / Scheduled bank /Gameena bank initially for a period of one year or till the disposal of the case. In the event of her conviction, the Special Court shall transfer the same to the treasury of the State Govt. so as to adjust the same against the misappropriation. In the event of her acquittal, the same may be released in her favour with the interest accrued thereon.
v) In the event of petitioner disobeying any of the above conditions, the respondent/Police are at liberty to move this Court/Special Court for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs