Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shivashankarappa B vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 101691/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA.B,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC.: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O: 5TH CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
APMC POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, NOW
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.2 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CRIME NO. 46/2018 OF APMC POLICE STATION, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 406, 408, 468, 420, 465, 409, 477-A AND 405 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
In this petition the petitioner who is accused No.2 in Crime No. 46/2018 of APMC Police Station, Navanagar, Hubballi, registered for the offences punishable u/S 405, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468, 477(a) and 420 of IPC, is seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is working as an Enforcement Officer in Provident Fund Office situated in Hubballi. It is further stated that the establishment-M/s Varshini Enterprises, Gandhi Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubli, (for short 'establishment') is covered under Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act'). At the relevant point of time it came to know that the accused-petitioner herein who was working as a Clerk in the establishment by creating certain bank accounts illegally used the amount for his own purpose in a sum of Rs.8,71,010/-. Accordingly, the complaint is filed by the complainant before the respondent- 3 Police, based upon which, the crime came to be registered and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation.
3. Whereas the Enforcement Officer who has stated in the report that the letter has been received on 05.09.2018 from Shivashankarappa.B. along with a demand draft for a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as payment for fraud case done by him. The amount involved is Rs.8,71,010/-. However, it is revealed that the major portion of the alleged misappropriated amount is repaid by him. Therefore, at this juncture it does not require to the contentions made in the report, be stated in detail for considering the present bail petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the allegations made against the accused in the complaint report filed by the complainant before the respondent Police but the reason for delay in lodging the complaint is not explained in the plausible circumstances. Therefore, the theory as set up to register the crime against the accused is only to harass him. Further, the petitioner 4 herein has paid the amount and as such the custodial interrogation is not required to the investigating agency. Due to the apprehension of arrest by the Police, this petition has been filed by the accused seeking for anticipatory bail.
5. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the accused is a law abiding citizen and also permanent abode of the particulars mentioned in the petition and he is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. These are all the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for the relief of bail.
6. Per contra, learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent- State has specifically stated that this accused has created fake documents and illegally used money for his own purpose in a sum of Rs.8,71,010/- which was sanctioned to the workers of the enterprises. Though the accused has repaid the amount it cannot be said that there is no role made by this accused for commission of the alleged offences. But, 5 subsequent to registration of the criminal case, it is still under investigation. Therefore, the accused do not deserve for the relief of bail as sought for. Accordingly, learned Govt. Pleader is seeking for dismissal of the bail petition.
7. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the counter made by the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to refer that the enterprises is covered under the Act and it is the duty of the employer to identify the member and attest the claim with necessary documents to withdraw the amount by the EPF Members from the EPF Office. But, in the instant case, it is alleged that the petitioner, who is a clerk in the enterprise has illegally used the amount in a sum of Rs.8,71,010/- for his own purpose. However, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is repaid by him by way of demand draft. The case is still under investigation which requires the investigating officer to collecting material documents, statements, panchanama, etc. 6 Therefore, at this stage, it does not require any detailed discussion for considering the bail petition as there are substances in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the relief of bail. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is deserving for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner who is accused No.2 in Crime No. 46/2018 of APMC Police Station, Navanagar, Hubballi, registered for the offences punishable u/S 405, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468, 477(a) and 420 of IPC, shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum 7 surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the event of his arrest;
2. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall co-operate with the investigating officer during investigation;
3. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses;
4. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall appear before the Court of law on all the dates of hearing;
5. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall mark his attendance once in a fortnight as per the English Monthly Calendar before the Investigating Officer between 10 AM and 5 PM for a period of three months;
6. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE Bvv