Karnataka High Court
Sri.Pankaj S/O Shivaji Bokade vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102576/2017 C/w. Crl.P.No.102578/2017
IN CRL.P.No.102576 OF 2017:
BETWEEN
SRI.PANKAJ S/O SHIVAJI BOKADE
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STORE IN CHARGE,
R/O: 25/A, 4TH CROSS,
SUBHASH CHANDRA NAGAR,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, UDYAMBAG POLICE STATION,
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN UDYAMBAG POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 111
OF 2017 (P.C.NO. 248 OF 2017) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
IV JMFC BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 408, 406, 403, 420, 464, 468,
477-A, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 65, 66, 66-
D OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000.
2
IN CRL.P.No.102578 OF 2017:
BETWEEN
SHRI UTTAM S/O SHANKAR PATIL
AGE 38 YEARS,
OCC: FORMER PRODUCTION MANAGER,
R/O: PLOT NO.372, UMA BUILDING,
2ND STAGE, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(UDYAMBAGH P.S. BELAGAVI),
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BENCH PREMISES,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL ON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN
BELAGAVI UDYAMBAGH P.S.CRIME NO. 111 OF 2017 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B,
408, 406, 403, 420, 464, 468, 477-A, 506 READ WITH SEC.
34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 65, 66 AND 66-D OF THE
INFORMATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners in both the petitions have filed the petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail. Both the petitions arise out of same set of facts in connection with Crime No.111/2017 of Udyambag P.S. relating to private complaint in P.C.No.248/2017 before IV-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 408, 406, 403, 420, 464, 468, 477A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 65, 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, both theses petitions have been disposed of by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and his brother together established the firm under the name and style as M/s.Servo Controls and other group companies in the year 2002 and having around 200 employees in the said Firm. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.102576/2017 being arraigned as accused No.3, who is working as Store In- charge, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.102578/2017 being arraigned as accused No.2, who is working as Production Manager along with them the accused No.1 is working as an Accountant, accused No.4 is working as Cost Control Chief 4 and he was authorized to sign purchase orders, accused No.5 working as Head of Manifold Block Machine (Unconventional Machinery Section), accused No.6 working as driver of the complainant, accused Nos.7 to 14 are said to be the owners of the fictitious Company/Firm created by accused Nos.1 to 5 to misappropriate and mis-utilize the funds of the Firm run by the complainant. Whereas the petitioners in both the petitions in association with the other accused have misappropriated the funds of the Company for their personal, wrongful gain and transferred the funds in a sum of Rs.47,45,407/- to the fictitious Company/Firm created by accused Nos.1 to 5. Subsequent to filing of the complaint by the complainant before the IV-JMFC, Belagavi, a case in P.C.No.248/2017 came to be registered and the same has been referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Jurisdictional Police for investigation and to submit the report. Based upon the case, the Udyambag Police have been registered the case in Crime No.111/2017 and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioners in both the petitions have been 5 traced by the Police and since from the date of arrest they are in judicial custody.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State in both the petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions during the course of their arguments vehemently contended that based upon the private complaint in P.C.No.248/2017, a case in crime No.111/2017 came to be registered by Udymbag P.S. for the alleged offences. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.102576/2017 being arraigned as accused No.3, working as Store In-charge and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.102578/2017 being arraigned as accused No.2, working as Production Manager in the Firm run by the complainant, but there is no specific role made by these accused for committing the alleged offences by creating fake documents and also misappropriation of funds as narrated in the complaint and so also committed the offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with the other accused. But there is no specific material against these 6 accused for committing the alleged offences, but the theory has been set up in a private complaint filed by the complainant before the Court of IV-JMFC, Belagavi. Based on the complaint filed by the complainant crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation by Udyambag P.S. It is further contended that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer apprehended these accused and since from the date of arrest these accused are in judicial custody. Apart from that the learned counsel contends that the petitioners/accused are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to them. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent- State vehemently contended by reiterating the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant for the alleged offences. Subsequent to registration of the complaint a case in crime came to be registered and thereafter the Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted the report, but the accused were traced by the Investigating Officer during 7 the course of Investigation. In the averments of the complaint, it is stated that there was a role made by these accused along with other accused and the same has been reflected in the averments of the complaint by committing the alleged offences like creating fake documents and also misappropriation of huge amount as narrated in the complaint. Subsequent to registration of crime against the accused, the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP prays for dismissal of the petitions and if the accused are supposed to be released on bail they would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence.
6. Having regard to the contentions which has taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State it is relevant to state that based upon private complaint in P.C.No.248/2017, a case in Crime No.111/2017 of Udyambag P.S. came to be registered to investigate the case and to submit report. During the course of investigation, the accused have been apprehended by the Police and they are in judicial custody since from the date of arrest. But the accused who is 8 working in the Firm run by the complainant, wherein these accused along with other accused are involved in committing the alleged offence of misappropriation of funds, cheating, forgery and so also creating fake documents including the offence under Information Technology Act. But the case has been referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and moreover the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer by recording statement of the witnesses and so also securing the documents relating to the complicity of crime, which is narrated in the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, at this stage, it is said that it does not require any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petitions filed by the petitioners respectively, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petition seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP for the respondent-State that if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence could be 9 curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused are deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners in both the petitions are hereby allowed. The petitioners/accused shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.111/2017 of Udyambag P.S., relating to P.C.No.248/2017 on the file of IV-JMFC, Belagavi subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with like sum surety to the satisfaction of IV-JMFC, Belagavi as where case in Crime No.111/2017 is pending.
(2) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall cooperate with the investigating Officer during the course of investigation.10
(3) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
(4) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
(5) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall mark their attendance once in fortnight as per the English monthly calendar in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of three months before the concerned SHO.
(6) The petitioners/accused in both the petitions shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioners violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*and in the facts and circumstance of the case relating to the entire evidence is to be put forth by the complainant in order to establish the allegations made against the petitioners herein being elected members appears to be camouflage such as c