Karnataka High Court
Sri Kanti Veeresha S/O Late ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102029/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI KANTI VEERES HA
S/O LAT E VEERABHADRAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC. MEMBER OF NANDIHALLI,
GRAM PAN CHYATH, NANDIHA LLI ,
TQ. HUVIDAHADA GALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGA RA-583102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL S . DESAI, ADV OCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HADAGALI POLI CE STATION ,
HADAGALI ,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLI C PROS ECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP
And Sri. ANAND R. K OLLI , ADV . FOR RES PONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO GRA NT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PET ITIONER,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BA IL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN HADAGALI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.30/ 2022
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 120B, 408, 409, 420,
465, 468, 471, 477A , R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.30/2022 of Hadagali Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420, 465, 471, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri.V.B.Shivananda, resident of Nandihalli village, who has lost election against the petitioner, has made a complaint before the Executive officer, Taluka Panchayat, Hadagali and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Ballari, alleging that the petitioner in collusion with the PDOs has misappropriated the funds in respect of NAREGA Scheme 3 and 14 t h financial project. On the basis of the said complaint, Internal Audit Committee was formed and the Committee, after inspection of documents, has submitted its report on 21.04.2020. The report stated that, the officials of the Gram Panchayat failed to submit complete bills pertaining to the work to the tune of Rs.16,77,561/- and it was also observed that the PDOs of the Gram Panchayat have sought sometime to produce. The report specifically mentioned about the negligence of the PDOs of the Gram Panchayat. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hadagali, by his communication dated 29.04.2020 informed the same to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Ballari. The said Sri.V.B.Shivananda has submitted one more complaint before the Ombudsman-the Authority constituted under the NAREGA Scheme to look into the allegations and implementation of the project. A case was registered by Omdubsman and after holding enquiry, submitted a report on 27.11.2020 stating that the allegations is not proved and the work under the Scheme were carried out as per 4 the Rules. The said Shivanand filed a private complaint before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Huvinahadagali in P.C. No.48/2002 contending that the petitioner, in collusion with accused No.2, has misappropriated the funds of the Gram Panchayat to the tune of Rs.1,45,93,437/- and caused financial loss to the Government. He contended that though he has requested the Executive Officer, Taluk Panhayat, to initiate criminal case against the petitioner and accused No.2, since no steps are being taken, he has filed the private complaint. It is further contended that, he had sent the complaint to the Police Officials through RPAD on 12.11.2021 and no action is being taken. The learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hadagali, has referred the said private complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police for the purpose of investigation. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.30/2022 by Hadagali Police for the offences under Sections 34, 120B, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC. The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the said FIR, apprehending his arrest has filed 5 Crl.Misc. No. 5430/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) by order dated 14.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
The learned Government Pleader is assisted by Sri.Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Ombudsman who is the authority constituted, after conducting an enquiry submitted a report that there is no misappropriation. It is his further submission that there was formation of an Internal Audit Committee and the Executive officer has sent a letter dated 29.04.2020. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and 6 handover the documents, if any, for investigation. It is his further submission that already the relevant documents are available in the Ombudsman's report, submitted during the Internal Audit and if any further documents are required, the petitioner is ready to handover those documents which are available with him. It is his further submission that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except the offence under Section 409 of IPC. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Nandihalli, Huvinahadagali taluk, Vijayanagara district and he is ready to co-operate with the police in the investigation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there is misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,45,93,437/-. The petitioner, who is accused No.1 was the President of Nandihalli Grama Panchayat at the relevant point of time. He along with the PDO have caused misappropriation of funds under 7 NAREGA Scheme. It is his further submission that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, by using his political influence, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and he may not handover the documents required by the Investigating agency. He further submits that, the Investigating Agency has to collect the documents of 2017-18 plan and documents pertaining to the year 2015 to 2020. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the averments of the private complaint, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. A private complaint has been lodged by one Sri. V.B.Shivananda. The said Sri. V.B.Shivanand has lost Gram Panchayat election against the petitioner/accused No.1 twice. It appears that, there is political rivalry between the petitioner and the said Sri.V.B. Shivananda. 8 It is alleged in the said private complaint that, the petitioner along with the PDO has misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,45,93,437/- under NAREGA Scheme. The Ombudsman has already conducted an enquiry and has already submitted a report. The petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the police in the Investigation and ready to furnish the documents required for investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except the offence under Section 409 of IPC. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Nandihalli, Huvinadahadali taluk of Vijayanagara district and his presence can be easily secured for the purpose of investigation and trial.
8. The apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he, by using his political influence, would hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
9
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.30/2022 of Hadagali Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.10
iii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall remain present before the police station concerned on every Sunday between 10:00 am to 6:00 pm and mark his presence for a period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.
iv. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
v. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall make available the documents which are with him to the Investigating Agency.
vi. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
vii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.
Sd/-
JUDGE km v