Karnataka High Court
C.V. Muniraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4687/2022
BETWEEN:
C.V.MUNIRAJ
S/O. H.K.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT SREE RENUKA NILAYA
4TH MAIN CROSS, 4TH CROSS
JAYANAGARA WEST
SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU-45. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY TIPTUR POLICE
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
C.C.NO.859/2018 (CR.NO.318/2008) OF TIPTUR TOWN POLICE
STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES
2
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND J.M.F.C AT TIPTUR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.318/2008 of Tiptur Town Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offence punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the Manager of Shriram Chits (K) Private Limited filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Manager from 03.09.2001 to 07.11.2007 at Tiptur Branch and he was alleged to have been heading the branch and his job was to supervise the work of the branch and the amount collected by the collection assistants is regularly and in full remitted to the branch and his duty was to remit the amount collected to the 3 company's account without any delay. It is alleged that taking advantage of the same, this petitioner has not remitted the amount to the company's account and retained the heavy cash in his hand. However, through the audit report, it was brought to the notice that a sum of Rs.9,78,133/- was misappropriated by this petitioner. Hence, complaint was given and case has been registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 408 of the IPC. This petitioner was enlarged on bail earlier and thereafter, he did not appear before the Trial Court, subsequent to 2017. Hence, non-bailable warrant was issued and he was secured on 11.04.2021 and thereafter, he approached the Trial Court for grant of bail and the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was suffering from medical ailments and hence, he could not appear before the Trial Court. The counsel would also submit that the petitioner is in custody from 11.04.2021 and the accused No.2 with similar allegation in the charge-sheet has been acquitted by the Trial Court in 4 C.C.No.455/2010 and hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail as he is in custody for more than 10 months. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.932/2021 dated 24.03.2021, wherein this Court declined to quash the proceedings but, directed the petitioner to appear before the Court and his bail application may be considered.
5. This matter was heard earlier and learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce the medical documents, if any regarding jumping of bail. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with the document i.e., the report received from the Department of Radiology dated 09.10.2017 and this report pertains for the month of October, 2017.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that, inspite of the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by exercising the discretion, the petitioner has jumped the bail and not complied with the order passed by the Court, while granting bail and he 5 has misused the bail. Hence, the question of again exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner does not arise. He also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in 482 petition, when the relief was sought to acquit the petitioner on the ground that other co-accused has been acquitted and the same has been turned down. However, this Court directed to consider his bail application. But, that is not the case of jumping bail and it is a case of absconding. Hence, the same will not come to the aid of this petitioner.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, this petitioner was granted bail and thereafter, he did not appear before the Trial Court and in the month of April, 2021 itself non- bailable warrant is issued against him and till his arrest from 2017 to April, 2021, he did not make any efforts to appear before the Court for recalling the warrant and also not co- operated with the Trial Court for trial. Hence, split up case has been registered and accused No.2 had faced the trial and ultimately, he was acquitted.
6
8. Now, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though this Court declined to quash the proceedings, however directed the Trial Court that he may be enlarged on bail, subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. There is no dispute with regard to the order passed by this Court, wherein prayer was made to quash the proceedings and the same is not a case of bail jumping and the same is a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the acquittal of other accused. In the case on hand, discretion has already been exercised in favour of the petitioner granting bail and once he was granted bail, the petitioner has to comply with the conditions imposed by the Court and instead of complying with the conditions imposed by the Court, he did not appear before the Court, that too, for a period of 4 years from 2017 to 2021 and with great difficulty, he was secured before the Trial Court and now, he is in custody. When he has not complied with the conditions of the Court and when the discretion was exercised in his favour, the question of again exercising the discretion in favour of this petitioner does not arise considering 7 the fact that he had absconded for a period of 4 years after jumping the bail. The medical records produced by the petitioner along with the memo pertains to the month of October, 2017 but, he was absconding from April, 2017 itself. The medical records does not disclose anything that he was an inpatient in the hospital and what made him not to appear before the Court till 2021 is not explained. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner once again.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST