Karnataka High Court
Mr Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3337 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MR SURESH KUMAR
S/O. LATE. R.P. NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.68, 8TH CROSS,
GAJANANA NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE - 560091. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
#36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560032. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN R.C.5(A)/2018, OF
CBI/ACB/BLR, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 409,420,468,471,120B OF IPC, SECTION
13(2) AND 13(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.6. He has sought for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in R.C.No.5(A)/2018 pending on the file of XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections 409,420,468,471,120B of IPC, Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Initially, FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 based on the complaint lodged by Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bengaluru. The gist of the complaint is that Smt.K.R.Saroja, the then Branch Manager in the rank of Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, while posted as such, during the period from 26.08.2013 to 01.06.2016, had sanctioned and disbursed various loans under UCO Bank's schemes for home loans and property loans to 18 loan applicants to the tune of Rs.19.03 Crores. She colluded with a middleman namely Sri.B.S.Srinatha s/o.Surayanarayan, who canvassed certain loan applications and submitted fake and fabricated documents to support their proof of income in order to be eligible for availing the loans. All the documents submitted to 3 the Bank turned out to be fake and fabricated. It is also alleged that three approved valuers of the Bank namely Sri.Gopinath R.Agnihotri, Proprietor of M/s.R & G Associates, Bengaluru, Sri.Jambunath and Sri.N.Venkatesh, Proprietor of N.Venkatesh & Associates, Bengaluru, inflated the valuation and failed to give fair valuation.
3. In the course of the investigation, on 05.04.2018, a search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner herein and blank forms and rubber seals were recovered from his possession. According to the Investigating Agency, the fake documents used for availing the above loans were fabricated with the use of seals and the blank forms seized from the possession of the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offences. There is no prima facie material to show that any of the documents were either forged or concocted by the petitioner. Merely because blank forms were found and seals were found in the possession of the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that same were used to bring about the documents which were taken as collateral 4 security by the Bank. There is no basis for implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent however would contend that the matter is under investigation. The incriminating materials have been seized from the possession of the petitioner. Whether these materials have been used for the purpose of forgery and falsification of the documents is yet to be established during trial and hence, the petitioner cannot be admitted to bail at this stage.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the complaint. As already stated above, no allegations are made against the petitioner in the FIR. The only material collected against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of blank forms and seals. Whether the said blank forms and seals are really made use of to bring about the documents which were produced by the accused for availing the huge amount of loan from the Bank is required to be established only through scientific evidence. For the said purpose, the custody of the petitioner is not necessary. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has played any specific role in bringing about 5 the fake and fabricated documents. According to the respondent, his role is yet to be decided by obtaining the report from the handwriting expert or the scientific officer. In either way, the custody of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the character of the evidence that is in the possession of the petitioner, in my view, the custody of the petitioner does not require to be extended.
Hence, the following:-
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner/accused No.6 in R.C. No.5(A)/2018 pending on the file of XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. 6
b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar offences.
e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
f) Petitioner shall mark his attendance on the 15th of every calendar month until submission of the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss