Karnataka High Court
Smt. Basamma W/O Anandappa vs The State By Psi on 15 June, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101138/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt.Basamma W/o.Anandappa,
Age : 35 years, Occ : Household,
R/o.Vanenuru Grama Panchayathi,
Vanenuru Village, Ballari Taluka,
Dist : Ballari.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Gode Nagaraj, Advocate)
AND:
The State by PSI,
Moka Police station,
Ballari Taluka and District,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad- 580 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory
bail in Moka Police Station, Ballari in their Crime
No.176/2015 for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420 read with Section 34 IPC
:2:
and under Section 111 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
Act.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
court, made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of her arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 111 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.176/2015.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that, the present petitioner along with other accused persons misappropriated the amount pertaining to the panchayat. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered as against the petitioner/accused No.3 and other two accused persons. :3:
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that, the present petitioner was working as a Secretary in the said Panchayat and recently joined to the said panchayat in that capacity. It is also his submission that during that short period the petitioner was not able to commit the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also made the submission that there is false implication of the present petitioner, it is also his contention that similar set of allegations made against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have been already considered by this Court and they were admitted to anticipatory bail. Learned counsel produced the copy of the order dated 15.06.2016 passed in Criminal Petition No.100121/2016, when the other accused person has been already released on bail as per said order on the similar set of allegations, the present petitioner also on the ground entitled to be granted with :4: bail. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment.
5. Hence petition is allowed, the respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.176/2015 for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make herself available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ckk