Karnataka High Court
A. Nagesh Kumar S/O Late H. Nagarajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.101090/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101090/2018
BETWEEN:
A.NAGESH KUMAR S/O LATE H.NAGARAJAIAH,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SDA IN RTO OFFICE, BALLARI,
R/O C-12, SRI RAM NILAYA,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
BEHIND RTO OFFICE, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA G.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI,
REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO DIRECDT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.362/2017 OF COWL BAZAAR POLICE
STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 409, 420, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, SO FAR AS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P.No.101090/2018
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C."), seeking anticipatory bail in Cowl Bazar Police Station crime No.362/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "IPC").
2. The summary of the case of the respondent- State is that, one Sri.A.Krishnamurthy, who is said to be an incharge RTO Office at Ballari has lodged a written complaint with the respondent-police on 23.12.2017. The summary of the said complaint is that the complainant is working as Senior Motor Inspector since four years in the Regional Transport Office at Ballari. The accused Sri.N.Nagesh Kumar is also working in the same office as Second Division Clerk (SDC). He handles the work of treasury and issuance of driving licence. Despite the assigned work, the said accused by engaging many agents CRL.P.No.101090/2018 :3: and middleman in the office intermediates in the work of the office for monetary consideration does all the work for the customers and third parties in securing licence certificate etc. by using his influence and pressurizing in the office. He used to put threat to other colleagues who used to question his authority to do those activities. On 12.12.2017 the accused instructed the complainant to issue a fitness certificate with respect to a vehicle tractor bearing registration No.KA-35/A-7614, without producing the said tractor for inspection. Since the complainant refused to issue a fitness certificate without examining the vehicle, the accused was not happy. On 14.12.2017, the accused making use of the login and password of the complainant, which information was earlier given to him by the complainant with respect to doing some remittance job of the office, has himself entered the details in the system and prepared licence issue certificate. The accused also succeeded in mixing the said document among the pile of the files which CRL.P.No.101090/2018 :4: the complainant had kept for his signature. Thus, the document falsely prepared by the accused also got the signature of the complainant without his scrutiny.
3. In the meantime, the accused was also kept under suspension by the Commissioner of the Transport Department on 18.12.2017, which order could not be served on the accused since he remained absconding. In that process, on 22.12.2017 at 8.00 p.m. while the complainant was in front of his house, the driver of the accused Mallesh and other two persons approached him and threatened him of dire consequences, in case the complainant fails to ensure withdrawal of the complaint and the suspension order made against the accused. Stating that the accused apart from misusing his login password of the computer has also falsely created the document and cheated both himself and the Government and also has put life threat to him, the complainant has requested the police to take action against him. The said complaint was registered by the respondent-police against CRL.P.No.101090/2018 :5: the accused and two others in crime No.362/2017 for the offenses punishable under Sections 409, 420, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the contents of the complaint are unbelievable and false for the reason that a computer opens for operation not merely on login password, but it also requires a biometric thumb impression. Thus, it reveals that a false complaint has been foisted against a colleague by a senior colleague.
5. The learned Government Pleader who has taken notice for the respondent in his oral objection submitted that the complainant is none else than the senior colleague in the office of the accused/petitioner herein. The details narrated in the complaint itself go to show about the alleged several such acts committed by the accused. As such, when a prima facie case is made out against the accused of cheating not just of an CRL.P.No.101090/2018 :6: individual but the entire department, he is not entitled to the relief which he has sought for.
6. By a reading of the complaint what could be noticed is that the complainant in this case is none else than the senior colleague of the present petitioner. The said complainant has given some details as to how the present petitioner was working in their office and how he was using his position in the office for various misdeeds and wrongful acts. He has given the details about the mode of operation of the work of the petitioner in that regard with respect to the alleged misuse of his password and login ID. The complainant has given a detailed account of the accused/petitioner. The said narration given in the complaint when taken at its facial value makes it prima facie case against the accused. The truthfulness of which has to be ascertained only in a full-fledged trial. At this juncture, suffice it to say that a Second Division Clerk in the office is shown to have been involved in various acts, which were not expected of a government servant to do. CRL.P.No.101090/2018 :7: Further, it is also shown that an order of suspension has also been passed against him, which is not yet been served upon him due to his unauthorized absence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was reappointed. Whatever may be the said position, confining to the present case on hand, suffice it to say that a serious allegation has been leveled against the present petitioner. The complainant further made an allegation about the accused approaching him and putting a life threat. All these aspects prevent this Court to exercise the power to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner herein.
Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-