Karnataka High Court
Mr. Kiran Kumar vs State By The Karnataka on 10 April, 2023
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 341 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 341 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. KIRAN KUMAR,
S/O. MR. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.73,
4TH CROSS, MRS LAYOUT,
SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FEROZE NIZAM A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed STATE BY THE KARNATAKA,
by YASHODA
KRISHNAPPA BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING - 01
BANGALORE - 560 004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.201/2022 OF BASAVANAGUDI P.S.,
-2-
CRL.P No. 341 of 2023
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 403,409,420,468 R/W
34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Feroze Nizam A., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant anticipatory bail by directing the respondent police i.e. Basavanagudi Police Station to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of any arrest in Cr. No.201/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 403, 409, 420 and 468 r/w section 34 of IPC registered before the Respondent Basavanagudi Police Station and pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore with such other terms and -3- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023 condition as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Upon the complaint lodged by Sachin Patil, Basavanagudi Police registered a case in Crime No.201/2022 on 16.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 IPC against the petitioner and Smt.Rajeshwari.
4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioner along with other accused were working as Bill Collector and they collected the money from the customers of BWSSB, but did not remit the same to the BWSSB, and in the accounts of the customers, an entry was made stating that the bill has been paid. When the internal audit was ordered, the discrepancies were noted and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in his period, out of 63 cases, 46 cases were noticed where the -4- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023 petitioner has collected the money from the customers and did not remit the same to the tune of Rs.2,29,551/-.
5. Based on the said complaint, after registering the case, police are investigating the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner is absconding from the date of complaint.
6. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, by order dated 26.12.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.12498/2022. Thereafter the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition contended that petitioner is not responsible for the alleged misappropriation and the order passed against the complainant suspending him from the services itself clearly shows that the alleged misappropriation has taken place by the persons who are working as outsourced persons and therefore, the petitioner has no role in such misappropriation and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. -5- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023
8. Per contra, learned HCGP reiterating the contentions urged in the objections statement contended that out of 63 cases, there is clear misappropriation in 46 cases, which is straight away attributable to the petitioner and the misappropriated amount is to the tune of Rs.2,29,551/- and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary.
9. He also pointed out that for the entries to be made in the website, there must be a Login ID and password which were not known to the others and how petitioner could crack the password and make entries in the customers files, is a matter that needs a detailed investigation after the petitioner is taken to the custody and there may be possibility of several other such misdeeds owing to the fact that the password has been misused by the petitioner and sought for rejection of the bail petition.
10. Perused the material on records meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties. -6- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a Bill Collector. When the internal audit took place, the auditors noted several discrepancies wherein the entries in the website of the BWSSB with regard to the individual customers reflected that money has been remitted by the customers for consumption of the water charges, but the same was actually not remitted to the account of the BWSSB. Pertaining to the present petitioners 63 such cases were identified and in 46 cases, the petitioner has received the money from the customers but did not remit the same to the BWSSB. The complaint averments clearly reveal that a sum of Rs.2,29,551/- is the amount of the money that has been misappropriated by the petitioner by misusing the Login ID and password and making false entries in the website of BWSSB. Apart from these prima facie materials, there are other issues which are also to be investigated and enquired into by the Investigating Agency after taking the petitioner to custody. -7- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023
12. Taking note of the fact that the complaint averments itself reveal several cases of misappropriation including the misappropriation that has taken place during COVID-19 pandemic period, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie materials clearly reveal that the petitioner is directly responsible for the alleged misappropriation.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, produced the copy of the order passed by Sri N.Jayaram, I.A.S. Officer, who is the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, whereby the complainant was suspended. Mere suspension of the complainant from the services would not ipso facto make out a case that the petitioner is totally innocent of the offences alleged against him. At the most, the order of suspension passed by the Chairman, BWSSB would show that there is dereliction of duty on the part of the complainant who is none other than the official superior of the petitioner.
14. Likewise, the order passed by the learned LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in -8- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023 C.Misc.No.12605/2022 in favour of Sri R.Srinivasa, granting anticipatory bail would not act as a parity for the present petitioner to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail from the hands of this Court inasmuch as the role assigned to the present petitioner is altogether different than that of R.Srinivasa. It is also pertinent to note that very same District Judge, who granted the bail to R.Srinivasa has rejected the bail for the present petitioner after thorough application of mind.
15. These factors when viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is utmost necessary to unearth the truth in the complaint averments and also to find out many such deviations/misappropriations in the work of the present petitioner.
16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, vis-à- vis the grounds urged in the petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where this Court should use the special powers vested in this Court under -9- CRL.P No. 341 of 2023 Section 438 Cr.P.C in accepting the request for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the petition needs to be dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court and files an application seeking grant of bail, the same shall be heard by the learned Judge and dispose of the bail petition uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this order.
18. Accordingly, reserving such liberty, this Court passes the following:
ORDER Criminal Petition is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-