Karnataka High Court
C. Surendra Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10234/2021
BETWEEN:
1. C. SURENDRA REDDY,
S/O. M BHASKAR REDDY,
AGE 32 YEARS,
R/O. DOOR NO.20/2A-1-23/4,
KOTHURU, WARD NO.20/1-A,
NELLORE, ANDRA PRADESH 524004.
2. C. NARESH REDDY,
S/O. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY,
AGE 41 YEARS,
R/O. FLAT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,
3RD MAIN, MAITHRI LAYOUT NEAR,
O FORM CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU 560066. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGLAURU 560001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.121/2021 REGISTERED BY
THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT
2
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 407, 420 READ
WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., HOSAKOTE, BENGLAURU DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.121/2021 registered by the Thirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 407, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed the complaint dated 22.11.2021 against M/s. Sri Srinivasa Transport, Bengaluru making the allegation of missing of the fertilizers, which was supplied by the complainant to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Transport and on visiting M/s. Sri Srinivasa Transport on 05.10.2021, found the missing of the fertilizers worth Rs.16,69,196/- and inspite of efforts to contact M/s. Sri 3 Srinivasa Transport over phone, personally and e-mail, could not able to get the Company and on 07.10.2021 also through e-mail made a request and no response was received from M/s. Srinivasa Transport. The details of the owner as well as assistant and sleeping partner is also mentioned in the complaint. Based on the complaint, the case has been registered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is an employee of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Transport and he is in nowhere connected with the misappropriation of the fertilizers by the Company. The learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 is not a sleeping partner. In support of his contentions, he has produced the registration certificate, which is standing in the name of petitioner No.2 in the name and style of M/s. Lakshmi Agencies, and he is the proprietor of fertilizers business and these two petitioners are in no way connected to misappropriation of fertilizers.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that in the complaint, the names of the petitioners is mentioned as 4 sleeping partner and assistant and phone details are also given and accused No.1 is not secured.
6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material, specific allegation is made against M/s. Srinivasa Transport and no doubt, in the complaint, the names of the petitioners are mentioned as assistant and sleeping partner. The contention of the petitioners is that they are in no way connected in misappropriation of the fertilizers, which took place in M/s. Srinivasa Transport and also petitioner No.2 is not a sleeping partner and only petitioner No.1 is assistant as alleged in the complaint. When the documents are placed before the Court regarding petitioner No.2 being the proprietor of the firm registered in the name of M./s Lakshmi agencies and petitioner No.1 being the assistant of M/s. Srinivasa Transport, cannot attribute the liability on them, unless investigation is completed as to whether the petitioners have played a role in committing the offence of misusing of the fertilizers. Hence, it is an appropriate case to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioners can assist the Investigating Officer and co-operate for investigation.
5
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.121/2021 registered by the Thirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 407, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-
sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. 6
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD