Allowed

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa v. the State through Dhannur Police Station

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2013CRL.P/15123/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case regarding alleged financial irregularities and money misappropriation in a cooperative bank. The petition was allowed with conditions requiring cooperation with investigating authorities and periodic police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a self bond of Rs.13,00,000/- with surety, cooperating with investigation, and reporting to police every Saturday.

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa Vs the State through Dhannur Police… — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15123/2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Bhaskar S/o Peerappa, Age: Major Years, Occ: Ex. Chief Executive Officer PKPSB Halbarga, R/o: Taluk Bhalki. … PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri. S.S.Kumman, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State through Dhannur Police Station. Taluk Bhalki, District Bidar.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this court to release the petitioner on bail in the

¶15

¶16

event of his arrest in Crime NO.204/2012 of Dhannur Police Station, Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶17

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

¶20

The petitioner is before this court seeking anticipatory bail. He is said to be the Chief Executive Officer of Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari Bank. It is claimed that there are five employees in the Bank apart from the petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer, from 21.2.2005 till 17.5.2010, when he was kept under suspension. It is stated that there is entrustment of the monies for distribution of loan to the members of the Bank. It is also the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer to ensure recovery. The day to day financial affairs of the Bank were, however, monitored by the treasurer of the Bank. It is stated that on 17.4.2010, the field officer one

¶21

¶22

Manikrao had held a half-yearly inspection of the Bank and alleged that there were financial irregularities in the Bank and that there was a difference of balance in the deposit to the tune of Rs.8,42,591/-. Even in the general balance, it was found that 71 members had not received any benefit under the Scheme of business development and the amount of Rs.1,98,800/- was unaccounted. There were double advances made to 18 members under the Scheme of business development which was to the tune of Rs.3,45,200/-. The inspection is said to have revealed that there were other irregularities involving other amounts of money including the fact that the cash register on 29.2.2008, showed an amount of Rs.1,88,175/- though the amount received was Rs.1,98,715/-. Similar discrepancies were all recorded in the report at the inspection. On the basis of the said irregularities, a case had been registered naming the petitioner as one of the accused. It is in grave apprehension of his impending arrest, that the petitioner had approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail. The court below has rejected

¶23

¶24

the same on the ground that the defalcation alleged against the petitioner involves a large sum of money and that he was the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank who would be primarily answerable to the irregularities. Therefore, his presence before the court was a must and could not be granted anticipatory bail in the circumstance of the case. Therefore the petitioner is before this court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though he has been given a glorified title of Chief Executive Officer, his duties are minimal and that it is the other subordinate officials who managed the day to day affairs of the Bank. The irregularities noticed are several for which other employees of the Bank would be answerable. Therefore, the petitioner would suffer grave damage to his reputation and standing in society, if the petitioner is remanded to judicial custody and therefore seeks enlargement on bail as the irregularities would have to be enquired into in appropriate

¶26

¶27

proceedings and the criminal case is hardly the manner in which any such irregularities in the accounts of the Bank can be ascertained and unless that is established as a fact, to claim that there is misappropriation of the amount involved, by the petitioner, is incapable of being foisted against the petitioner and therefore seeks enlargement on anticipatory bail.

¶28

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor however would oppose the same and would submit such a contention is available to the petitioner even before the trial court. The fact that the petitioner is keeping away from the court is itself an indication of his guilt, for otherwise, there is no impediment for the petitioner to approach the very court below and claim that unless the accounts are investigated and findings are arrived at, to clearly fasten the liability on the petitioner to answer for the short-fall in the huge amounts of money that are involved, the petitioner may not be entitled to bail.

¶29

¶30

However, having regard to the facts and

¶31

circumstances, it is possible that the petitioner may be remanded to judicial custody, if he should appear before the court below and even seek regular bail, for the process of consideration of the bail petition itself, may consume some time. The second contention that the petitioner is Chief Executive Officer and therefore would not be answerable for all the irregularities that may have been thrown up at the inspection would also ring true. In other words unless there is a certain determination of the actual losses that have occasioned and unless the liability is fastened on the petitioner the allegations of misappropriation cannot be sustained. Therefore it is a fit case where the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest.

¶32

The petition is allowed. However, in order that the petitioner absolve himself of any guilt, he should fully cooperate with the Investigating Authorities and therefore, is

¶33

¶34

put on terms. The petitioner, in the event of his arrest, shall be enlarged on bail, on furnishing a self bond in a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakh only) with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the court below. The petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Authorities and fully co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner shall report to the Police Station on every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. till a charge-sheet is filed. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.02.2013.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Msr

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa v. the State through Dhannur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa v. the State through Dhannur Police Station

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

Ravansidda S/O Gollalappa Bidarkundi Vs the State of Karnataka R/by Addl. Spp Circuit Benc

Jaibheem S/O Baburao Bansode Vs the State through Aland P.S.

Bhimsha S/O Lakkappa Melinkeri Vs the State through Deval Ganagapur P.S.

Nagesh S/O Yasavant Gayakwad and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mainu @ Mainuddin S/O Mohd. Usman Guttedar Vs the State through Grameen Ps Gulbarga

Laxmi W/O Bhojappa Gosai Vs the State through Mudhol P.S.