Karnataka High Court
Archana D/O. Yallappa Betageri vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100064 OF 2024 (439)
BETWEEN:
ARCHANA D/O. YALLAPPA BETAGERI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT MANAGER,
R/O. SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR,
HAVERI-581110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, HAVERI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
HAVERI.
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.
2. RITESH KUMAR S/O. RAM SHANKAR PRASAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. CHIEF MANAGER,
DEPUTY REGIONAL HEAD, REGIONAL OFFICE,
HUBBALLI.
Digitally
VIJAYALAXMI signed by
M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI
M BHAT
*(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT*)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J. M, ADDL AG ALONG WITH
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI T.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL
IN HAVERI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION CRIME NO.92/2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SNR. DN) AND
CJM COURT, HAVERI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024
120B, 409, 420, 471, 477, 477(a), R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accused No.1 in Crime No.92/2023 registered by Haveri CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 471, 477, 477(a) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.92/2023 was registered by Haveri CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district against the petitioner and two others for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the complaint lodged by Raviraj S/o Narasappa, the Branch Manger, Union Bank of India, Kurubgonda Branch, Haveri district. In the complaint, it is averred that the complainant had joined the bank at Kurubgonda Branch as a branch head on 12.10.2023. The previous manager had died on 03.01.2023.. Since there was lot of -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 customer issues in the branch office of the Bank at Kurubgonda, nobody was ready to take charge of the branch and therefore, without any option, the petitioner herein was working as branch head from 02.05.2023 till the complainant joined on 12.10.2023. In the complaint, it is also averred that on 26.10.2023, the transfer order was issued against the petitioner and on the very same day, she was relieved from the bank. However, on 30.10.2023 the security officer from the regional office had submitted a report that on 27.10.2023, the petitioner along with other accused persons had unathorised access to the branch on the guise of handing over keys to the complainant and it was also stated in the said report that the accused persons had operated ATM machine, collected some cheques, voucher papers and thereafter, had entered the strong room of the bank and collected some items and had left the bank with a plastic tray and bag.
4. It is averred in the complaint that there was a cash shortage of 31,33,500/- which was noted on -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 30.10.2023. It is further averred in the complaint that there were complaints from the customers and as per the report of the inspection officers from the regional office, the gold ornaments pledged in the bank for obtaining gold loan were also missing. In the complaint, it is averred that the petitioner along with other accused persons had caused a huge loss of nearly 1,62,76,712/- to the Bank.
5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 08.11.2023. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl.Mis.No.868/2023 was rejected on 29.12.2023. Therefore, she is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case after she was transferred. He submits that accused nos.2 and 4 have been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court in the present case and accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner is a lady aged about 39 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 years, who is in custody for the last nearly three months. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, the learned additional Advocate General appearing for respondent no.1 and learned senior counsel appearing for the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 have opposed the bail application. They submit that there is recovery from accused no.1 and she has admitted her guilt by depositing the amount drawn by her from ATM machine on 27.10.2023. They submit that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating that the alleged offences are punishable with life imprisonment, has granted bail to the other accused persons and after the same was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, the bail application of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed. They also submit that the investigation in the case is under progress. Learned AGA has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Crl.A. No.3840/2023) and Tarun Kumar Vs. -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No.9431/2023). Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
8. The petitioner is a lady aged about 39 years and she was working as a Assistant Manger in Union Bank of India. As per the complaint averments, since there was a lot of customer issues in Kurubgonda branch of Union Bank of India, the officers of the bank were not ready to take charge of the branch at Kurubgonda. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner was asked to officiate as a branch head at Kurubgonda branch for the period from 02.05.2023 onwards till the complainant joined on 12.10.2023.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioner was transferred from the said branch on 26.10.2023 and she was also relived on the same day. The allegation against her is that she had come to the branch office of the bank on 27.10.2023 along with accused nos.2 and 3 and had taken away huge amount of cash and other valuable from the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 bank. Accused nos.2 to 4 are also employees of the bank. They were working in the branch office of the bank in various capacities. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had caused huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,26,712/-.
10. Accused Nos.2 and 4 have been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court and accused no.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in this case. Undisputedly, the said orders have not been challenged either by the State or by the defacto complainant. Petitioner is a lady who is in custody from 08.11.2023 till date. The major portion of the investigation in the case is completed. The arguments put forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the learned Sessions Judge, unmindful of the fact that the alleged offences are punishable with life imprisonment had granted regular bail and anticipatory bail to the other accused, cannot be a ground to reject the bail application of the petitioner when the said orders -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 granting regular bail and anticipatory bail to the other accused has not been questioned by the respondents till date.
11. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the petitioner's prayer for enlarging her on regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively.
12. The judgments in case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement on which reliance has been placed by the learned AGA cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case, as the said judgments are rendered in cases were offences, under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were invoked against the accused. Section 45 of the said Act provides for certain rigors for granting bail to the accused who are involved in case for the offence punishable under the provisions of -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 said Act. Therefore, the above referred judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.92/2023 registered by Haveri CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 471, 477, 477(a) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii. The petitioner shall attend Trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing unless his appearance is exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245 CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024 iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses. iv. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15