Allowed

Tatyasab Jinagouda Malagoudar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2012CRL.P/10937/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC, the Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused facing charges of misappropriation in a cooperative society. Bail was subject to conditions requiring appearance before the investigating officer, execution of a bond, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions of personal appearance, bond execution, and non-interference with investigation.

Tatyasab Jinagouda Malagoudar Vs State of Karnataka — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10937/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shri Tatyasb Jinagouda Malagoudar, Age: 62 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o. Yalimunnoli, Tq. Hukkeri, District: Belgaum.

¶9

Shri Jaypal Malagouda Malagoudannavar, Age: 62 years, Yalimunnoli, Tq.: Hukkeri, District: Belgaum. …Petitioners

¶10

[By Shri Raviraj C. Patil, Advocate]

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Rep. by PSI, Hukkeri Police Station, District: Belgaum. …Respondent

¶13

[By Shri V.M.Banakar, A.S.P.P.]

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking that

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

an order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners be passed with a direction to the Police or Investigating Officer of Hukkeri Police Station to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Hukkeri Police Station Crime No.62/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following: -

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioners are ranked as accused Nos.5 and

¶20

27 in Crime No.62/2012, which is under investigation for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The prosecution case is, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, based on the enquiry report received by him on 31.07.2008 in respect of Yallimunavalli Rait Seva Sahakari Sangh

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Niyamit, a Cooperative Society, authorised the Inspector of Cooperative Societies to initiate prosecution against the Office Bearers of the Society, on the allegation that there was misappropriation of funds, assets and stocks of the said Society. The petitioners are said to be Directors of the Society and were in Office when the alleged offences are said to have been committed.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the complaint is based on the enquiry report in which certain acts of malfeasance and misfeasance in managing of the Society were noticed. The Inspector has filed a report based in direction of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society. The enquiry report would show that all documents and account books of the Society have been seized and they are in possession of the Authorities.

¶25

In the circumstances, even though the petitioners are charged for the offences indicated

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

above, they may not have accessed to the documentary evidence on which the prosecution is based. Besides, prosecution is not alleged, possibility of the petitioners interfering with the investigation or absconding.

¶28

Being of this view, I am satisfied, keeping in mind the apprehension of arrest, they could be granted the relief of bail. The petition is allowed subject to following conditions: -

¶29

i) Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer incharge of the investigation within two weeks from now.

¶30

ii) On their appearance, they may be arrested, but shall be released if they execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may be.

¶31

iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer and subject

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

themselves to interrogation as and when required.

¶34

iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses by any means.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Rsh

Tatyasab Jinagouda Malagoudar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tatyasab Jinagouda Malagoudar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraj S/O. Mallikarjun Banni Vs Sachin S/O. Shivanand Tapashetti

Basavaraj S/O. Basavantappa Gangannanavar Vs the State by Psi

Basavaraj S/O. Mallikarjun Banni Vs Vinay S/O. Chandrashekhar Halakati

Sunil Pandurang Gavade Vs State of Karnataka

Ramappa S/O. Hanamantappa Kumkumgar Vs Lalita W/O. Ramappa Kumkumgar

Sarvotam Dal and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ishwarshinghs/O. Kashiramshing Fulanekar