Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harsha S/O Shivaputrappa Lingadal vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITIN NO.100291/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. HARSHA S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA
LINGADAL, AGE:25 YEARS,
OCC. SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF AGRICULTURE, YALLAPUR, U.K.,
R/O YELLAPUR TOWN, TQ. YELLAPUR,
DIST. UTTARA KANANDA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
YALLAPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT:DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN YELLAPUR
PS CRIME NO.352/2017 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 418, 420, 465, 468 AND 471
OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AND JMFC COURT, YELLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.352/2017 registered by the respondent-Police.
2. The petitioner is a Government servant. He was posted as Office Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture at Yellapur. The Assistant Director of Agriculture lodged a complaint before the respondent- police on 08.12.2017 alleging that during his tenure as Incharge Supervisor, in 2014 and 2016 the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.11,87,283/- which was earmarked for subsidy for purchasing agricultural implements. Out of the said amount, he reimbursed an amount of Rs.4,51,500/- to the treasury but failed to credit the balance amount to the treasury. Further it was alleged that the petitioner prepared 13 forged bills 3 amounting to Rs.5,88,842/- and misappropriated the said amount.
3. The petition filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar Sitting at Sirsi in Crl.Misc.No.5200/2017 dated 06.01.2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lower ranking officer. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. The alleged misappropriation could not have been done solely by the petitioner, yet, the criminal prosecution and the departmental enquiry is initiated only against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is already kept under suspension and therefore, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the documents. Moreover, the allegations made against the petitioner could be substantiated only with the aid of documentary evidence which are available with the 4 department and therefore, even the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
5. Having considered the submissions and on going through the allegations made against the petitioner, I am of the view that having regard to the nature of the accusations made against the petitioner which require to be substantiated only on the basis of the documentary evidence which are very much available in the Agricultural Department, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Further, the petitioner being kept under suspension, the possibility of the said documents being tampered by the petitioner are also remote.
6. Therefore taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the application is allowed with the following order:
ORDER The petition is allowed.5
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the I.O. shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day on obtaining a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O. and subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O.
and the Court as and when required.
ii. The petitioner shall not threaten or lure the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the documents or any other evidence.
iv. The petitioner shall mark his attendance
in Yellapur P.S. on the 1st and 15th of
every calendar month until the
submission of the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sh