Karnataka High Court
Sri.Jerry Paul vs State Of Karnataka By S.H.O. on 11 November, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5963/2020
BETWEEN:
Sri Jerry Paul S/o Pauls
Aged about 44 years
Residing at No.282. Jayanthinagara,
Kennalu Post, Pandavapura
Mandya District-571 473.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Nanjundaswamy N., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
by SHO, City Crime Branch Police Station
Bengaluru City and Commercial Street
Police Station, Bengaluru,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri V.M.Sheelavanth, SPP-I A/w
Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.10/2020 of Commercial
Street Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences
punishable under Sections 118, 406, 409, 411, 419, 420,
462, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 475, 477A, 201 and 120B
r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders 'through
Video Conference', this day, the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.10/2020 of Commercial Street Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 118, 406, 409, 411, 419, 420, 462, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 475, 477(A), 201, 120B r/w 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Nanjundaswamy N. for the petitioner virtually and the learned Special Public Prosecutor-I Sri.V.M.Sheelavanth and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty, for the respondent-State.
3. The Managing Director of Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Federation filed the complaint alleging that they have called quotation from various banks for keeping the -3- fixed deposits with the said federation by informing that they will give higher rate of interest. The Board had decided to keep the fixed deposit of Rs.100 Crores in the Syndicate Bank. In pursuance of the same, on 18.11.2019 transferred an amount of Rs.100 Crores from Andhra Bank, Rajajinagar Branch to Syndicate Bank, Uttarahalli Brach through RTGS and the said amount has been kept in two accounts for Rs.50 Crores each. Subsequently, on 21.1.2020 when an enquiry has been made, the bank officials informed that out of the deposited amount of Rs.100 Crores, only Rs.52 Crores has been left out and they also informed that about Rs.48 Crores has been transferred to various accounts and on verification of the certificates given to the bank, they came to know that fabricated certificates have been produced and the amount has been got transferred. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed. Either -4- in the complaint or in the charge sheet the name of the petitioner is not found. It is his further submission that already accused Nos.3, 7, 12, 17 and 18 have been released on bail by the trial Court and the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that there is no allegation of misappropriation of any funds of the complainant by the petitioner. It is his further submission that entire charge sheet does not disclose any serious overt acts of the petitioner. It is his further submission that the petitioner has been apprehended by the Commercial Street Police on 10.9.2020 at about 9.30 pm. and he has been in custody till 14.9.2020 and thereafter on 14.9.2020 they have got issued a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has been released. It is his further submission that subsequently the police are asking him to pay Rs.39,00,000/-, otherwise they are going to apprehend him. The petitioner is an innocent person and there is apprehension of his arrest by the police. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may -5- be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP-I Sri.V.M.Sheelavant vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner- accused has not made out any grounds so as to release him on anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that name of the petitioner is neither found in the charge sheet nor in any of the charge sheet material and no allegations are there as against the petitioner. It is his further submission that on 14.9.2020 notice has been got issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. It is his further submission that the provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. are very clear that where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, then issue of notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence. It is his further -6- submission that the Officer of the station house if he is intending to apprehend him, in that regard he has to pass a reasoned order, then thereafter he ought to be arrested. It is his further submission that if a notice has been issued, a duty caste upon the person that he shall comply with the terms of the said notice. It is his further submission that if he fails to obey the terms of the notice, then under such circumstances the competent authority will have a right to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. No such circumstances are existing in the present facts of the case. It is his further submission that there is no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner in the said case and the petitioner-accused has been called only for the purpose of enquiry. Under such circumstances the present petition is not maintainable. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
-7-
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is apprehension of arrest by the Commercial Street Police in Crime No.10/2020. But as could be seen from the material produced, the name of the petitioner is not found in anywhere in the charge sheet record. When the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused and already the charge sheet has been filed, then under such circumstance the petitioner-accused apprehending that he is likely to be arrested, appears to be not justifiable and proper. It is not the case of the petitioner that police have obtained necessary permission under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation. In that light, there is no apprehension of his arrest.
8. Be that as it may. Even as could be seen from the record it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a notice has been got issued by police to the petitioner under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. on 14.9.2020 as per Annexure-E. It is the contention of the learned SPP-I that when notice has been -8- issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., it indicates that arrest of person is not required, in that light, such notice has been issued. As such there is no apprehension of arrest. For the purpose of brevity, I quote Section 41A of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.
(1) The police officer shall in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
-9-
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by the competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.
9. On close reading of Section 41A of the Act, it indicates that where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C., then the notice could be got issued to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or suspicion exists for having committed a cognizable offence to appear before him and it also makes it clear that it is the duty of the
- 10 -
person to comply the terms of the notice and when the said person complies and continues to comply with notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless for the reasons to be recorded. The police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested and in that regard he has to pass an order.
10. On going through the said provision and the records, admittedly a notice has been got issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. When once notice has been issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., that itself makes it clear that the arrest of the petitioner is not required. Be that as it may. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 10.09.2020 at about 9.30 p.m. he has been taken to custody and was there till 14.09.2020. In that event, if police wanted to arrest him, definitely they could have done so. Not arresting and issuing notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and sending him, goes to show that in terms of the provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., they do not want to apprehend or arrest the petitioner.
- 11 -
11. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case on hand and the above said proposition of law, I am of the considered opinion that there is no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner-accused. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police are demanding the petitioner to give Rs.39,00,000/-, but in order to substantiate the said fact, no material has been got produced. On such submission anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
12. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances the petitioner has not made out any grounds to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-