Karnataka High Court
Swamy S/O. Yallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067
CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103671 OF 2024
[438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SWAMY S/O. YALLAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,
R/O. SHYAVANTHGAL, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAYACHURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KUSHTAGI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
B SHELAR
Date:
2025.02.04
14:52:47 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C. (482
OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY GRANTING
ANTICIPATORY BAIL, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST
IN CRIME NO.159/2024 REGISTERED BY THE KUSHTAGI POLICE
STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 409 AND 420 OF
IPC, PENDING INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHTAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067
CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition for anticipatory bail is filed on basis of apprehension of imminent arrest for non-bailable offences alleged against petitioner in Crime no.159/2024 by Kushtagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).
2. Sri B. C. Jnanayya Swami, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated. It was submitted, petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer who was placed in-charge of Bhoomi Kendra, on 10.12.2019 he was entrusted with work of issuance of Record of Rights. Since his pan card and aadhaar card were not seeded with login ID of Bhoomi software, he was instructed to use login IDs of other staff namely Sharanappa Huded, Prathibha Ganji, Hajarathabi Nadaf, etc.
3. It was submitted in month of February 2024, when Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi inspected Bhoomi Kendra, Kushtagi, petitioner was absent from duty. It was found that from 2019 to 2024, an amount of Rs.63,68,739/- was collected -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067 CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024 from public by distribution of Record of Rights but only Rs.18,71,304/- credited. When petitioner was asked about said amount, he admitted to have diverted amount for his personal use. Though he credited Rs.12,68,135/-, there was short fall of Rs.32,81,388/-. Alleging that petitioner had siphoned of said amount, complaint was lodged.
4. At outset it was submitted, complaint filed on 08.09.2024 was in respect of incident that had occurred in year 2019 after inordinate delay of five years. It was further submitted petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer and as per direction of Tahasildar placed to work in Bhoomi Kendra. Said work was alternative work and therefore petitioner cannot be held responsible for short fall / misappropriation. It was submitted petitioner was having wife and school going children apart from old aged parents who were suffering from ill-health and all of them were dependent on petitioner. Besides, petitioner was non-gazetted government employee and likelihood of fleeing from justice or tinkering with investigation were non-existent. On said ground sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067 CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024
5. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, assigning petitioner to work in Bhoomi Kendra by Tahasildar, Kushtagi, from 10.12.2019 for issuance of Record of Rights by petitioner is not in dispute. Though petitioner is seeking to dispute total amount, same was with reference to number of Record of Rights issued. Besides fact that, petitioner had misappropriated portion of it and used it for his personal needs is also admitted. Thus, prosecution case would stand vindicated as petitioner deposited sum of Rs.12,68,135/- into P.D Account of Deputy Commissioner after instruction by Regional Commissioner. Thus, offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC would stand substantiated.
6. It was submitted, offence under Section 409 was punishable with imprisonment for life while under Section 420 of IPC, maximum sentence was 7 years. Therefore offences alleged against petitioner were grave and serious. It was submitted, fact that petitioner was absconding would indicate that there was no cooperation for investigation which was still in progress, sought rejection of petition. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067 CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024
7. Heard learned counsel.
8. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail on conditions?
9. As noted above, petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail is founded on his apprehension of imminent arrest due to registration of Crime no.159/2024 (supra) for offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC which are non-bailable in nature and wherein petitioner is sole accused.
10. In view of fact that offence under Section 409 is punishable with imprisonment for life while under Section 420 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for 7 years, offences alleged against petitioner would be grave and serious, especially, as it is committed by a Government Employee by misappropriation of public money. Fact that petitioner is stated to have deposited Rs.12,68,135/- on conclusion of inspection by Regional Commissioner would substantiate that petitioner had diverted government funds for personal use. Though complaint is alleged to have been filed belatedly, it is seen -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2067 CRL.P No. 103671 of 2024 complaint is filed immediately after misappropriation was detected after inspection by Regional Commissioner. Therefore prima facie said ground appears not tenable.
11. Admittedly, investigation is under way and petitioner is absconding. In case of grant of bail, petitioner is in all likelihood to affect investigation. For aforesaid reasons, point for consideration is answered in negative.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4