Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Mallappa Kutakoli vs The State Of Karnataka, on 31 March, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.100301/2017
Between:
Basavaraj
S/o Mallappa Kutakoli
Age: 62 years
Occ: Retd.from service
R/o S.R.Colony, Plot No.332
Jalanagar, Bagalkot Road
Vijayapur
...Petitioner
(By Sri P.N.Hosamane, Advocate (absent)
And:
The State of Karnataka
By Mahalingapur Station
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)
:2:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner releasing him on bail in the event of his
arrest in Mahalingapur Police Station Crime No.101 of
2012 for the offences punishable under Section 420,
465, 468 of IPC and Section 65 and 68 of Information
Technology Act, 2000 and etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned High Court Govt.Pleader for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner absent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent- police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of I.P.C. and under Sections 65, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered in respondent-police station Crime No.101/2012.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the petition that on 09.07.2012 Sharanappa Neeralagi, :3: Regional Manager, KVG Bank filed complaint alleging that the complainant bank migrated to core banking solutions as per the RBI directives on 31.03.2011. The service provider M/s C-Edge Technologies Limited, Wellspring Godrej and Boyce Complex, Mumbai has outsourced the contract to M/s Takyon System Solutions, Bangalore. On 19.03.2012 during tallying physical cash in hand with that of CBS system, two suspicious transactions for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- on 25.06.2011 and 22.07.2011 were credited to savings bank account No.89001798234. The said amount was withdrawn by Belagavi Branch. Senior Manager, I.T. Division was deputed to Belagavi Branch to verify the suspected transaction. He submitted that Rs.14,00,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from S.B.Account No.89001798234. It is stated that SB account at Jainapur Branch was opened without following KYC norms in the name of Farhan Mohammad. It was known that same named person is working in Tykon System Solutions Bangalore but bank does not have any information about :4: him. The present petitioner was Manager at Jainapur Branch and alleged that he violated the KYC norms, not obtained proper documents while opening SB Account and thereby authorized fraudulent transaction and committed dereliction of duties. On the basis of all these allegations case came to be registered for the above said offences.
4. Learned High Court Govt.Pleader during the course of argument made submission that looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it clearly goes to show that the petitioner along with others committed the alleged offence and hence he is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
5. Perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR and complaint and also the order passed by the learned I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi rejecting the bail application.
6. Looking to the averments in the petition petitioner contended that he is innocent and not involved :5: in committing the offence. He has also mentioned that he will not abscond or flee from trial or investigation and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and security for his release on bail. All the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petition can be considered for releasing on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. Respondent-police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the said offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of I.P.C. and under Section 65 and 68 of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered in respondent police station Crime No.101/2012, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum with the satisfaction of arresting authority.
:6:
b) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.
c) Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
d) Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK