Karnataka High Court
A G Jayanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 May, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 (3) AIR KAR R 102
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MAY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRLRNO,2005/2012
BETWEEN:
A. G .JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O GANGAPPA
RIO ALAGHAflA VILLAGE
KADUR TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN SHYAM M & SACHIN ADVS. FOR
M/S, DHARMASHREE ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KADUR POLICE S FATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE
PFBH( PROSECL FOP
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BA.NGALORE. .. RE. SPOND ENT
(BY SHRE 0. V. SPINIVASA REDDY. HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE E
FEE'I(i' ER i\ L VT THE ECEVI 'AL ARRFS
AL ME NO zC z CF WALL P [ OLIC 13 T$ V N
CUIKNIGAIt R 1315 FC[CT FOR TUE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF [PC
2
THIS CRIMINAL PEnTION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS 11115 DAY. THE COURT MAI)E TIlE
FOLL.OVlNG:
ORDER
Heard 11w learned Counsel br the petirionei and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner is a sales clerk of TAPCMS. Kadur. and it is alleged that the petitioner is found to have misappropriated funds of the society to the extent of over Rs.25.00.000/ dnd this has been traced to the financial year 2002 2003 and though an enquiry report was gn en on 0507 2004 it is only on 2301 2012 that thc pnxeedings ha c bccn initiated agun he pe tiorcr )n hc a is f h mplan d b the n Scei in c c et' hetor h police flit e t n I Ii nsc,n ot 111% irre ,t had approachic 'x low %eeklng liii' 'I' 1O1V v:.iii hit %Pfli ,tii ;t 1 ci in :11.' ,qri bt Iti • ;h, '-''I.'1 Fat tb( n.-- Z) tidv 1 .
•:' ' iL(!j' ii • it Id
• •.; • •• ••,
3
may not have taken any action on account of
administrative fornlalitie% and that 1w it self could not entitle the illoner to 'eek anticipatory bail. even though the complaint was lodged after ten years from the date of commission of the olfence alleged and that as the investigation was on and Is yet to be completed. it would not be a fit case to grant bail as it would send a wrong signal to Society.
3. The learned ('ounsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasoning of the court below is not fair and the petitioner being an employee of the societ it mdc ed thc n en an enqui rc port and iudit report holding him responsible for hc flleged msap ropriat or 'irpnsm hit n yea' tion 1% mit te m nrni filed fter dn inoi dinah. Ic hit n b ttst'li would 'ai'e n sei ions dotin he ' rat ity of flit 'n Tli Iutih'-r ati. ra,u is tint i tnt 'rift 4 t liii .tj.ji'l '' :'fl .it..J tiie• • •.' •iC' 't1I 1 wi-re .1.1 If Jt ' I '(I 'P ' ji-- ,: ,, 'I': Ij 4 ball, would cause great injury and hardship to him. The petitioner has dcci) roots in Society and theretore. my such arrest at thiq point ol time would cause irreparable loss to the reputation of the petitioner.
4. The learncd Government Pleader would reiterate the objections that were upheld by the court below as regards the inordinate delay and investigation not being completed.
5. In the above c ircumstances, in the opinion of this Court. the very allegation that the commission ot offence was discovered at the earliest In the year 2003 bt t hoit er the complamt as lodged onti n cently .'. itself sutik ient to inahlc the pi titionc, to seek dnuc'Ipdton baiL sins t. the comrnis'4on of 'flew C 1% c n 1 Ii' h di lu er dr% i I tht action on the .art c rn ernplo.ei the- *1i. loner (b. i it' j;IU. able 4 r t ....t. . . r 5
1. In the event of his arrest. he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 50,000/- with one solvent surety for a like sum.
II. He shall co-operate with the authorities till the completion of the investigation. ifi. He shall attend the court on all dates of hearing shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court below.
iv. He shall not seek to terrorize any of the prosecution witnesses.
The petition is allowed in terms as above.
Sd! JUDGE YN.