Karnataka High Court
Nagesha G vs State Of Karnataka on 18 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1382
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2216 of 2020
BETWEEN
NAGESHA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT KEMPANNA'S HOUSE,
GIDADAKONENAHALLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA M.B., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BMTF POLICE, BENGALURU,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI THEJESH P., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.No.01 of 2020 REGISTERED BY BENGALULRU
METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 431 AND
441 OF K.M.C. ACT AND SECTIONS 409 AND 420 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail.
2. The petitioner is accused No.8 in Crime No.1/2020 of respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420 read with 120B of IPC and 431, 441 of Karnataka Municipal Act (for short 'KMC Act'). He is in judicial custody since 23.02.2020. He approached the City Civil and Sessions Judge for grant of bail by filing a bail petition, which came to be rejected. Hence, this bail petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated. He is not an employee of Bangalore Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) or having any close contact with the BBMP employees i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3. The name of this petitioner has been impleaded on 3 the voluntary statement of accused No.7. The entire allegations are against accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7. The only allegation against this petitioner is that accused No.7 transferred some amount to the account of this petitioner and the same was returned back to accused No.7 after withdrawing the same and the petitioner gained Rs.30,000/- as commission. The allegation made against this petitioner and the offences alleged against him are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, the presence of this petitioner is not required for any other purpose. Accused No.2 was already granted bail. Therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
4. Learned HCGP filed objections to the bail petition contending that this accused was also involved in the commission of the offence. Accused No.1 is the Chief Accountant in the office of the BBMP and accused No.2 is also the Chief Accountant, who was in-charge of the files 4 pertaining to the Grant from Government to the Contractors. Accused Nos.5 and 7 approached accused No.2 for financial assistance and accused No.7 had availed loan from Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank and could not repay. Therefore, in collusion with accused Nos.1 to 3, accused Nos.5 and 7 created fake documents and opened an account in the name of one Chandrappa and got payment of Rs.4,15,17,841/- and later, out of the said amount, accused No.7 transferred to accused No.8 to a tune of Rs.99,00,000/- and received back from accused No.8 which was withdrawn by accused No.8 by self cheques and Rs.30,000/- was paid to accused No.8 by accused No.7 as commission. Thereby, the accused persons have caused wrongful loss and misappropriated more than Rs.4.00 crores to the BBMP. Therefore, the District Court rightly rejected his bail petition by considering all these aspects. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
5
5. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether this petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail?"
6. The BMTF Police Station registered the case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences on the complaint of one Dr.Govindaraju, Chief Accountant of BBMP, Central Office, Bangalore. It is alleged in the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with accused Nos.5 and 7 have misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,15,17,841/- which pertains to the Contractor Bill of M/s.CJC Infra Project Private Limited. It is further alleged that the accused Nos.5 and 7 have approached accused No.2 for financial assistance and created fake documents in the name of CJC Infra Project Private Limited and opened an account in the name of one Chandrappa, the Contractor by accused No.7. Based upon the fake bills, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have transferred the above 6 said amount. Accused No.3 has issued a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and accused Nos.5 and 7 have withdrawn a sum of Rs.31,50,000/- on various dates from 04.02.2020 to 11.02.2020. Accused No.7 created bank account in the Bank of Baroda and got transferred Rs.99,00,000/- through RTGs from Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank to the SB Account. The issuance Cheque Book was delayed due to postal delay. Therefore, accused No.7 approached accused No.8 (present petitioner) for opening an account in the name of the present petitioner and the said Rs.99,00,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner's account by accused No.7. On the same day, the petitioner has withdrawn through self cheques a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.49,00,000/-. It is also alleged that the said amount of Rs.99,00,000/- has been given to accused No.7 and accused No.8, the present petitioner had received Rs.30,000/- as commission for facilitating the transaction successfully.
7
7. The Police during the investigation, arrested accused No.1 and 2 and this petitioner. Accused No.2 was already released on bail by the City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.6/2020. The entire allegation goes against accused Nos.1 to 3 since accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Chief Accountants and accused No.3 is Assistant-Grade II in the office of BBMP. Accused Nos.5 and 7, in collusion with accused No.2 alleged to have created false documents in the name of one Chandrappa and by creating fake Aadhar Card and PAN Card in the name of Chandrappa, the bill amount has been prepared on the job card in the name of the CJC Infra Project Private Limited for a total amount of Rs.4,42,82,551/- and further accused No.2 issued the cheque for Rs.4,15,17,841/-. The said amount has been transferred to the account of Chandrappa. Accused No.3 was issued Rs.2,25,000/-. The remaining amount was received by accused Nos.5 and 7. All the accused were already arrested by the Police. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he has received Rs.30,000/- as commission from accused No.7 for 8 facilitating accused No.7 to receive the amount of Rs.99,00,000/- by clearing the cheque through the account of the present petitioner. On perusal of the entire records, at this stage, the Court cannot presume that this petitioner has colluded with other accused in the scam. At this stage, there is no material placed on record to show that this petitioner has actively participated in creating fake documents for the purpose of any wrongful gain or intentionally caused wrongful loss to BBMP. The co- accused No.2 who is the main cause for the transferring of the huge amount to accused Nos.5 and 7 were released on bail. The entire prosecution case is based upon the documentary evidence. The Police have already seized the documents pertaining to accused No.8 and there is no recovery of any amount from this petitioner. He is no more required for the purpose of any further investigation. That apart, the charge sheet is already filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner has made out a ground for exercising the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Therefore, 9 by imposing some stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I pass the following:
The Criminal Petition is allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.1/2020 of BMTF Police and pending on the file of IV Additional CMM, Bangalore, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and the surety is dispensed with for the present due to COVID-19. However, the surety shall be furnished as and when directed by the Trial Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences;
iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly;10
iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of any further investigation as and when required.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv