Karnataka High Court
Anil Kumar Keshavarav Deshpande vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200835/2022,
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200836/2022 &
CRIMINAL PETITON NO.200863/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200835/2022
BETWEEN:
ANIL KUMAR KESHAVARAV DESHPANDE
S/O: LATE KESHAVARAV DESHPANDE
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC: FOUNDER PRESIDENT
SMN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH
VIJAYAPURA, R/AT: KILLA GALLI, BILAGI
BAGALKOT DISTTRICT - 587 116. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH
GANDHI CHOWK P.S. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
(REPT: BY ASPP HC KARNATAKA, KLB-585 103).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL/SPP
APPEARING FOR SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO GRANT
REGULAR BAIL IN SPECIAL CASE (KPID) NO.24/2021 ARISING
OUT OF CRIME NO.145/2020 OF GANDHI CHOWK POLICE
STATION, VIJAYAPURA, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER
KPID ACT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477/A AND 120 (B) READ WITH
SECTION 34 AND 37 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004.
2
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200836/2022
BETWEEN:
RAMU BANDDIVADDAR @ BANDIVAD S/O LATE BHIMANNA
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: INTERNAL AUDITOR
SNM CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, VIJAYAPURA
R/O: NANDISHWARA NAGAR, MUNDAGOD,
UTTARAKANNAD DISTRICT-581 349.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA. REP. BY: THE ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALBURAGI BENCH, KALBURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL/SPP
APPEARING FOR SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER ON THE REGULAR BAIL UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. IN THE CRIME NO.145/2020 IN THE
REGISTER OF THE GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477/A AND 120 (B) READ WITH
SECTION 34 AND 37 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT VIJAYAPURA.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200863/2022
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMED YUSUPH BHAGWAN
S/O: HASANSAB BHAGWAN
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: CLERK, SMN CREDIT SOUGHARDA
SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, VIJAYAPUR
R/AT: NANDINAGAR, BILAGI
BAGALKOT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL/SPP
APPEARING FOR SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALOLW
THE PETITION AND RELEASE THE ACCUSED PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.145/2020 OF RESPONDENT - POLICE
STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477/A AND 120 (B) READ WITH
SECTION 34 AND 37 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLOWING.:
4
ORDER
All these petitions are arising out of same crime number and charge sheet is also filed against all these petitioners for the same offence. Hence, for convenience all these petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order for convenience and to avoid the repetition of discussion.
02. The Criminal Petition No.200835/2022 is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, on bail in Crime No.145/2020 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 (b) read with Sections 34 and 37 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, (for short ('KPIDFE'), pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura.
5
03. The Criminal Petition No.200836/2022 is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3, on bail in Crime No.145/2020 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 (b) read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC and Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act, pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura.
04. The Criminal Petition No.200863/2022 is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.4, on bail in Crime No.145/2020 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 (b) read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC and Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act, pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura.
6
05. It is the case of the prosecution that an FIR came to be registered on the basis of report given by one Shivakant N. - Deputy Co-ordinator, Karnataka State Souharda Sanyukta Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi. It is alleged in the complaint that on enquiry by the Additional Director, Co-operative Society, Vijayapura, a report was submitted and it is noticed that the Administrators of the Co-operative Society have misused their authority and have lent Rs.16,08,16,854/- by creating false documents through different Branches. Their President, Vice-President, Members of the Administrative Department and Chief- Manager, colluding with Managers in the Branches, have created 114 fake accounts and lent Rs.08,29,16,761/-. The Society has lent small financial loan to the tune of Rs.1,48,81,909/-. It is also evident that as on 31.03.2019 Rs.3,45,47,035/- is due. All these loans are fake loans. The fake deposits are created by securing the loan with some deposits. There is a total mis-utilization of Rs.29,29,62,554/-. Though, there are no loan, recoveries at deposits and expenditures are showing that the society is in profit. It is also alleged that without permission, the 7 Branches are opened. Sections 7 (1) and 7 (1) (A) of Co- operative Society, is also violated. Further, the mandatory meetings as required and Rule-10 (A) of the Society Act, is also violated. Based on the said report, this complaint is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477/A and 120 (b) read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC and Section 9 of the 'KPIDFE' Act.
06. The bail petitions filed by the petitioners came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. Hence, the petitioners have filed these petitions.
07. Heard Sri. Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200835/2022, Sri. Sanjay Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200836/2022 and Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200863/2022 and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 8
08. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.200835/2022 argued at length that the petitioner has not committed the offences as alleged against him. He is falsely implicated in this case. The charge sheet shows that the notice given by the petitioner to the chartered accountant, he has given reply that the audit conducted by him is in conformity of loan sanctioned. The petitioner period as President was ended in the month of September-2018. Thereafter, the next year office bearers occupied the post of President. During the officiating period of the petitioner from the year 2009 to 2018, no depositors have made any complaint that their deposits have not been returned. Further, day to day business of the Co-operative Bank and Branches was conducted through Zenith Software Ltd., and every transaction has been recorded in that software. All the details stored in the hard disc have been downloaded by CW.13 - Sunil Kumar K. Astagikar, who is the Zenith Software System Executive and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. It is further argued that the Manager and other officials working in the branches were 9 dealing with actual money transaction, they had their own user ID and password of their respective systems. This petitioner had no any access to any of the systems to draw any money without the knowledge of the Manager. Therefore, the allegation made by the prosecution that the money of the depositors has been withdrawn and mis- utilized by this petitioner is not tenable. It is further argued that the institution has been taken over by the Government by appointing Administrator. All the relevant records which in fact were placed before the two auditors are expected to be in the safe custody of the administrator. Insofar as banking transactions are concerned, obviously they were safe in the software system. There is no scope for this petitioner to have access on records to tamper with the prosecution case. The properties of the SMN Credit Co- operative Society Ltd., have been seized. Not only that immovable properties of this petitioner have also been seized by the Government of Karnataka as per the order dated 11.11.2021 by exercising the power under Section 3 (3) of the ('KPIDFE'). Therefore, the question of evading trial by this petitioner does not arise at all. It is further 10 argued that the petitioner is responsible for establishing KSRTC Bus Depot, at Bilagi and Fire Station by providing plots. He is founder Trustee of Dr. V. B. Hosagoudar Bio research foundation comprising of 35 Scientists. This Trust is one and only affiliated institution of Botanical Survey of India in North Karnataka. It is further argued that the wife of this petitioner has expired during the period of Covid-19 pandemic. He has got two minor children with one girl child. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet is also filed. The accused voluntarily surrendered before the Police. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri. Ramakant Y. Hullar s/o Sri. Yallappa Hullar vs. State of Karnataka by CBI - ACB Bengalore reported in 2013 SCC Online KAR 8485. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
11
09. The similar argument is made in respect of Criminal Petition No.200836/2022 is concerned. It is contended that this petitioner was internal auditor and he has been falsely dragged in this case. His name was not included in the complaint. He is falsely implicated. No opportunity was given to explain his role. Investigation Agency has already collected the documents. The KPIDFE Act is not applicable. The charge sheet is already filed. All data relating to this petitioner has been seized. He is sole member of the family and old aged mother. This Petitioner has resigned his duties for society on 13.08.2018. He was working under a chartered accountant. The petitioner is no way related to the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.200863/2022 argued that the provision of IPC are not attracted, as the activities and management of the cooperative is regulated by the special enactment. 12 Now, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. The entire administrative control over the co-operative is taken over by the Government since 20.12.2020. There is no material against him. This petitioner is no way connected regarding misappropriation of funds of the co-operative society. There is no recovery of any fund from this petitioner. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. All the offences are triable by the learned Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be. The police have investigating the borrowers, in search of proof of fake loans. They have got personal interest in making false case. The statement of witnesses who are spoken cannot be taken into consideration. This petitioner is working on daily- wages and dealing with issuing cheques to the customers and maintaining the cheque book register in the said society. He was not aware and do not to know any transaction. His duty is to maintain the check books. Therefore, his involvement does not arise. There is no details as to how the funds are misappropriated. The petitioner has got family, children and old age parents. The 13 petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
11. Against this, the learned State Public Prosecutor filed written objections and argued that 114 fake accounts have been opened. The petitioners by using KYC of the customers, mis-utilized the funds. The amount advanced as a loan, the same was not recovered. The accused No.1 had surrendered himself and admitted the offences. The grave offences are committed by the petitioners. The charge sheet is filed after thorough investigation. As many as 20 fake accounts are noted. It is also argued that the offences are economic offences. The further investigation is going on. Looking into magnitude of the amount, at this stage the bail petitions may be rejected. It is also argued that the government has no intention to keep them in Jail by spending public money on the petitioners. At least till further investigation, they may not be released. If the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the 14 prosecution witnesses and they may threaten to the prosecution witnesses and evidence. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another vs. Amit Kumar Alias Bachcha Rai, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. Hence, the learned State Public Prosecutor prays to reject the petitions.
12. I have perused the averments of all the petitions, objections and also the synopsis.
13. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
(7) The severity of punishment, (8) The stage at which, the bail is sought. 15
14. It is evident that now the charge sheet is filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 (b) read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC and Section 9 of the 'KPIDFE' Act. It is also evident that there are as many as 216 witnesses have been cited. The charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 5. It is stated that against other accused up to 47, if the there is any evidence against them, they will be made an accused or otherwise they will be made as witnesses. They have also sought a request under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation. It is alleged that the said society promise to pay interest at rate of 13% p.a. to 15% p.a. So, there was lot of depositors. Even without taking permission from competent authorities, violating the Co-operative Society Act and Rules, the branches were opened. There were 21 branches in different villages. It is also alleged that the accused have appointed the managers, cashiers and clerks and auditors, only on oral order. There was no resolution or appointment order. No Board Management meeting was called.
16
15. It is also alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have used the bank money for traveling, day to day charges, for purchase of household articles and development of their lands. They used to send the accused No.4 - Yusuf Bagawan and get the money from cashier CW.305 - Gurumurthy. They used to draw the amount from suspense account. Through accused No.3 Benami loan accounts were created, amount was repaid and account was closed. So, it is alleged that from the year 2001 to 2018 totally 1,060 fake accounts were opened. Allegation against the accused No.3 is that 20 times he got deposited the amount to his account from the Manager of Dandeli Branch i.e., Rs.4,75,000/-. He has also got deposited an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- to his account. It is also alleged that these petitioners have misused the society amount and utilized in other business. They have purchased the vehicles for traveling.
16. The main allegation is that these petitioners though got deposited the amount, but not returned the said amount. They created false documents. They used the 17 amount for their personal gain. The total amount misappropriated at Rs.29,29,62,554/-.
17. Admittedly, now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Though earlier in the FIR as many as 47 accused were shown, who are all the branch officials and directors of the said society. But they are now left out. The charge sheet is filed only against accused No.1 to 5. As per the audit report there was misappropriation in 20 branches.
18. It is also evident that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200835/2022 was the President, till the year 2018. Most of the witnesses stated regarding deposit in the year 2019. Admittedly, the accused No.1 is not having direct control over the cash payment, but withdrawals is made according to prosecution at the instruction of accused No.1 and also by using service of accused No.3. Admittedly, the original bonds and kept in the sealed cover and documents at witnesses No.83 and 84 have been issued to the depositors after 11.07.2019.
18
19. There are as many as 12 volumes of charge sheet are filed. Each volume relates to details of the borrowers, who have failed to borrow the loan. The balance sheet, the pigmy account details from 11.07.2019 to 31.03.2021, seizer of documents and statement of custodian of documents. It is also evident that all the branches have different ID and account was operated through Zenith Software. It was already downloaded and given to Investigating Officer. The audit report, the resolution of the bank, copy of receipts, F.D. receipts and deposits collected from depositors with statements. Admittedly, the accused No.1 himself had surrendered before the police. It is also stated that by invoking Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, the accounts have been seized. The necessary materials and data relating to alleged crime has been seized.
20. It is evident that the accused No.3 - Ramu Bandivaddar was an Internal Auditor. It is stated that he was working under a chartered accountant. All the related documents have been seized.
19
21. It is also evident that the accused No.4 - Mohd. Yusuf Bagawan is a daily-wage employee. The allegation against him that as per the instruction of the accused Nos.1 and 2, he used to go to the cashier and inform them about the amount as demanded by accused No.1 and 2. It is also evident that the said cashier used to counter check with the accused No.1 and 2, then hand-over amount to accused No.3 and accused No.4 used to hand-over the same to the other accused. So, his role is very limited.
22. Therefore, looking into the nature of allegation, the background of the case and the statement of the witnesses, it is evident that all the alleged financial irregularities and illegalities are based on the records. The said records, Zenith Software and all other materials are seized. The properties of the society are also seized. It is also evident that general public or depositors or the members of the society, have not raised objections or not made any complaints.
20
23. The allegation that there was collusion between accused and borrower who have taken the loan, without offering the surety. It is not necessary at this stage to discuss the evidence in detail. It is also evident that the password is with bank officials. These accused are not either cashiers or managers. All the transactions are computerized, which is seized by the Investigating Officer. The statements of accounts are all available. It is evident from the column No.7 of the charge sheet that whatever further investigation is to be done is only in respect of other accused. It is stated that if there is no evidence against them, they will be made as a witnesses.
24. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned State Public Prosecutor in the case of State of Bihar and another vs. Amit kumar Alias Bachcha Rai, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. In that case, the accused was involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with examining system of Bihar Intermediate Examination -2016, thereby securing top ranks for his 21 daughter and other students. The documents regarding land to the tune of Rs.2.74 crores was seized and Rs.20 lakhs was also recovered. Apart from that large numbers of papers and other documents were recovered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said offence if proved, may jeopardize the credibility of education system of the State of Bihar. Looking into the nature, gravity and magnitude of the offence and entire education system, the bail order granted by the High Court was cancelled.
25. Here in this case, the investigation report in 12 volumes is already completed. The properties are seized and documents were also seized. The petitioners have shown that they have roots in the society. They are ready to abide by any conditions. The investigation is already completed and they are in judicial custody since long back.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 has dealt with grant of bail and it is held as under:-
22
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more person are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
27. Therefore, in view of the above principles, discussion made above, the statement of the witnesses and the petitioners' role and their duties, in my considered view the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. The Government has already taken over the society's 23 administration, the properties are seized under the provisions of KPIDFE Act, the investigation is already completed, insofar as these petitioners are concerned. Admittedly, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
28. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200835/2022, who is accused No.1 was the President from the year 2009 to 2018, there is no complaint made by any of the depositors. The petitioner himself surrendered before the police on 07.08.2021 and he was arrested, when he appeared in response to the notice issued by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than one year.
29. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200836/2022 was only an internal auditor working under chartered accountant. He also resigned the job in society on 31.08.2018 i.e., much prior to the registration of the FIR. He is shown as accused No.3 in remand application and he is also arrested on 13.08.2021. More than year, he is in judicial custody.
24
30. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200863/2022 was also arrested on 13.08.2021. He is only a daily-wage employee. The material against him is very weak as discussed above. His role alleged in the charge sheet shows that the prosecution has to go a long way to prove his involvement, if any in the alleged crime.
31. Therefore, keeping in mind the material against these petitioners, the nature of allegations, the nature of evidence collected by the prosecution and the contention of the petitioners, in my considered view, the apprehension of the prosecution that they may abscond or they may not cooperate for investigation or they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence, can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition No.200835/2022, Criminal Petition No.200836/2022 and Criminal Petition No.200863/2022, filed by the petitioners under Sections 439 of Cr.P.C, are hereby allowed. 25
In Criminal Petition No.200835/2022 the petitioner - accused No.1 - Anil Kumar Keshavarav Deshpande s/o Late Keshavarav Deshpande, in Criminal Petition No.200836/2022 the petitioner - accused No.3 - Ramu Banddivaddar @ Bandivad s/o Late Bhimanna and in Criminal Petition No.200863/2022 the petitioner - accused No.4 - Mahammed Yusuph Bhagwan s/o Hasansab Bhagwan, in Crime No.145/2020 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120 (B) read with Sections 34 and 37 of Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions. I. The petitioners shall execute a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with a two solvent sureties, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Prl. District and Sessions Court (Special Judge), at Vijayapur.
II. The petitioners shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses or prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
26III. The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities.
IV. The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential correct address to the investigating officer/Court and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer, if there is any change in the address.
V. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
VI. The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail as and when directed, unless they are exempted from appearance.
VII. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required or called upon to do so for the purpose of further investigation in this case and shall co-operate in the investigation.
VIII. The petitioners shall not alienate or sell their movable and immovable properties or create third party interest in the said properties, till disposal of the case and which is pending before the Trial Court.
27In case if any of these conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Any observation made in this order is confined to only for the purpose of considering bail petition. The Special Judge of the Trial Court is not bound or influenced by any observations made in the order. The Special Judge is at liberty to proceed further at subsequent stages of the case in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ