Karnataka High Court
Rajesh S/O Kotrayya Sonnadamutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100946/2020
c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.101086/2020
IN CRL.P.N O.100946/ 2020
BETWEEN:
K. NAGA BHUSHAN A S/O RAMANNA
AGE ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
OCC: NODAL OFFICER,
R/O: HADA GALI , HADAGALI TALUK,
DIST: BALLARI .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURES H P. HUDEDAGADDI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
PSI H.B. HALLI . P.S. H.B. HALLI
BALLARI DIST . REPTD BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH .
... RES PONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA S HIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYIN G TO DIRECT THE RES PONDEN T
POLI CE, SUB-INS PECTOR, H.B. HALLI P.S . TO EN LARGE
THE PETITIONER / ACCUS ED NO.3 IN THE EVENT HE
BEING ARRESTED IN CRIME NO.100/ 2020 FOR THE
2
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.403, 406, 408 AND 409
OF I PC.
IN CRL.P.No.101086/2020
BETWEEN:
RAJESH S/ O K OTRAYYA SONNADAMUTT
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
OCC: PRIN CIPAL OF
SRI GURU K OTRES WAR PRIVATE ITI COLLEGE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI ,
BALLARI DISTRI CT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.L. PATI L, ADVOCAT E)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HA GARI BOMMANAHALLI P.S.,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA S HIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION
AND ENLARGE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CON NECTION WITH
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI P.S . CRIME NO.100/ 2020 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 403,
406, 408, 409 R/ W 34 OF I PC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COM ING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.101086/2020 has been filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.100946/2020 has been filed by accused No.3 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.100/2020 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408 and 409 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Joint director (Training) and Ex-Officio Joint Apprenticeship Adviser, Department of Industrial Training and Employment, Divisional Officer, Kalaburgi, lodged a complaint alleging that under the SCP and TSP scheme, the Government had taken to provide Laptops to the SC/ST ITI students at free of cost. It is alleged 4 that accused No.1 who is the principal of Sri. Guru Kottureshwara Private ITI College, Hagaribommanahalli and accused No.4-Sharukh, who is the Administrator of Sri. Guru Kottureshwara Private ITI College, Hagaribommanahalli, sold the Laptops at Brundavana Hotel, Station Road, Dharwad and they were caught red-handed by the Vidyagiri Police, Dharwad and a case came to be registered in Crime No.154/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 380 of IPC. The Commissioner, Department of Industrial Training and Employment, Ballari, had directed the complainant to conduct an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. Accordingly, he carried out the said enquiry and submitted a report stating that t accused No.1 being the Principal and accused No.2, being the Administrator and accused No.3 being the Nodal Officer of Sri guru Kottureshwara Private ITI college Hagaribommanahalli, colluded with each other and misappropriated the 5 Laptops supplied by the Government under SCP and TSP scheme for the benefit of SC/ST ITI Students for the Academic year 2016-17 and they have not followed the directions to distribute the laptops. Based on the said complaint, the Hagaribommanahalli P.S. authorities have registered a case in Crime No.100/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408 and 409 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners in both the petitions have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the FIR and apprehend their arrest. Accused N0.1 has filed a petition seeking anticipatory in Crl.Misc.No.5215/2020 and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 18.08.2020. Accused No.3 has filed Crl.Misc.No.5179/2020 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated 29.07.2020 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at Hosapete. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court seeking bail.
6
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that already a case has been registered against accused No.1 in Crime No.154/2019 by Vidyagiri Police, Dharwad, for the offence punishable under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 380 of IPC. It is his further submission that accused No.1 in the said crime has been granted bail. It is his further submission that the offence has taken place in the year 2016 and the present complaint has been filed on 17.06.2020 and there is a delay in filing the complaint and there is no explanation for the delay. It is his further submission that, there are no allegations from the students against accused No.1. It is his further submission that even the complaint which is registered in Crime No.154/2019 7 also there is delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except Section 409 of IPC. With this he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that accused No.3 is a Nodal Officer and it is his duty to secure the laptops from the Government and distribute it to the college of accused No.1. It is his further submission that accused No.3 has supplied 55 laptops to the college of accused No.1 and he had obtained acknowledgement in that regard. It is his further submission that there is no role of accused No.3 in misappropriation of the laptops supplied by the Government to the College of accused No.1. It is his further submission that the name of the petitioner is mentioned as accused No.3 in the FIR and therefore, he apprehends his arrest. It is his further submission that 8 the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused No.3 is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except for an offence under Section 409 of IPC. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the accused Nos.1 and 4 have been caught red-handed when they made an attempt to sell the laptops in Dharwad in Brundavan Hotel and a case came to be registered against them in Crime No.154/2019 for the offence under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 380 of IPC. It is her further submission that accused No.3 is a Nodal officer and in collusion with accused Nos.1 and 4 has misappropriated the laptops which were to be given to SC/ST ITI students. It is her further submission that investigation is in progress and the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 is required for custodial interrogation. It is her further submission 9 that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will flee from justice and will not be available for investigation and trial. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and other documents.
8. On perusal of the complaint dated 17.06.2020, there is a mention that a case has been registered against accused Nos.1 and 4 in Vidyagiri Police Station in Crime No.154/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 41(1)(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 380 of IPC and they have been taken into judicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that accused No.1 has been granted bail in the said case. The accusation 10 levelled against accused Nos.1 and 3 is that they misappropriated the laptops supplied by the Government to be handed over to the SC/ST ITI students.
9. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC 312, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing various previous judgments and guidelines, has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;11
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;12
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
10. Whether, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 have misappropriated the laptops supplied by the Government or not is a mater of investigation and trial. The offence alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except an offence under Section 409 of IPC. The name of the petitioners is shown as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the FIR and they apprehend their arrest. Accused No.1 is the Principal of the College and accused No.3 is a Government servant and their presence can be secured easily.
11. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, they are likely to cause threat to the prosecution witnesses and may flee 13 from justice. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
12. 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 grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, they shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.100/2020 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/jurisdictional Court.
14
ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall
surrender before the Investigating
Officer/jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from today.
iii. The Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall co-
operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
iv. The Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 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.
v. The Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv