Allowed

Vishnuteerth S/O Raghavendracharya Gubbi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2019CRL.P/101796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of misappropriation and cheating, directing police to release him upon arrest subject to furnishing a bond and cooperating with investigation after interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail directed to appear before I.O. within 15 days for interrogation and enlargement on bail subject to personal bond, appearance as required, cooperation, and non-inju

Vishnuteerth S/O Raghavendracharya Gubbi Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101796/2019

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

VISHNUTEERTH S/O RAGHAVENDRACHARYA GUBBI AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, OCC: SUB-REGISTRAR, BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI P.S. CRIME NO.68/2019 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 403, 409, 420 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.68/2019 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by the Headquarters Assistant, Office of the District Registrar, Dharwad, the respondent-police have registered the case. The allegations are that the District Registrar of Davanagere has submitted a report to the Head Office reporting irregularity i.e. reuse of Demand Drafts which were required to be submitted to the Treasury/Bank, thereby loss caused to the government exchequer to the extent of Rs.5,84,885/-. On enquiry, it was found that instead of submitting the demand drafts for collection to the

¶20

¶21

Treasury/Bank as required under Rule 4(A) of

¶22

Karnataka Finance Code and Rule 197 of Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, 31 Demand Drafts have not been submitted to the Treasury, but they have been reused for some other documents which were submitted for registration. Thus, the concerned officers discharging the duty in the said office have misappropriated the funds and have committed wrongful acts of cheating. On registering the case, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court was rejected.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, perused the prosecution papers available at this stage.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶25

drawn attention of this Court to the office order dated

¶26

¶27

26.10.2018. According to the said office order, one official by name Sri. S.N. Sambrani, FDA was entrusted the duty of collecting the DDs and submitting them to the Treasure/Bank on the next day, preparing annual report, submitting the income tax report and attending other Courts matters. Relying on the said document, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that since the aforesaid duties were discharged by the FDA, the petitioner had no occasion to concentrate or keep vigil over the said matter. The petitioner has not played any role in the alleged misappropriation and there is no dereliction of duty, but he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶28

Per contra, learned HCGP for the

¶29

respondent-State submitted that as per the report submitted by the District Registrar, Davanagere who had conducted inspection in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Hubballi, Headquarters Assistant of the

¶30

¶31

District Registrar Office has filed the complaint. There are specific allegations that 31 Demand Drafts which were submitted along with the documents presented for registration have been reused for other documents which were submitted for registration, as a result of which, there is a loss of Rs.5,84,885/- to the government exchequer. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that the petitioner has committed alleged offences and there are no valid grounds to prove that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶32

As could be seen from the complaint averments, the allegations are that 31 Demand Drafts which were submitted along with documents presented for registration have been reused for some other documents submitted for registration. But in the complaint, there is no specific mention as to who has submitted or reused the DDs along with the documents which are already presented in the Sub-Registrar’s

¶33

¶34

office. According to the office order dated 26.10.2018, one official namely Sri. S.N. Sambrani was entrusted the duty of collecting the DDs which are presented for collection. At this stage, no specific records are forthcoming to show that the petitioner had an occasion to check whether DDs submitted along with documents presented for registration were already submitted earlier with some other documents presented for registration and they have been reused. It is pertinent to note that these irregularities have been committed during the period from April, 2016 to March 2018.

¶35

Generally, office inspection would be done every year, but no such audit reports have been placed on record. It is only in the year 2018, based on the report submitted by the District Registrar, Davanagere who is said to have conducted inspection has submitted the report. There are no allegations/report whatsoever against the person who has submitted the said DDs or

¶36

¶37

reused the DDs which are already submitted to the Sub-Registrar Office. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶38

Generally, anticipatory bail would be granted

¶39

in the anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases. Power to refuse the anticipatory bail is not to be exercised as if punishment before the trial Court is being imposed. The only material consideration in such a situation is whether the accused would be readily available for trial or whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering the evidence.

¶40

In the instant case, the grounds urged in the bail petition and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding his arrest and detention. The objection of the prosecution is that in

¶41

¶42

the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to interfere with the investigation. The said objection may be set-right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶43

In the facts and circumstances of the case

¶44

and the grounds urged in the bail petition, the petition deserves to be allowed subject to terms and conditions.

¶45

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶48

The petitioner is directed to appear before the

¶49

Investigating Officer of the concerned police station within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order on any working day and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and enlarge him on bail on the same day and subject to the following conditions:

¶50

¶51

i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for

¶52

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶53

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Court as and when required.

¶54

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the

¶55

investigation.

¶56

iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

Violation of the above conditions would result in

¶58

cancellation of the bail automatically.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

JTR

Vishnuteerth S/O Raghavendracharya Gubbi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnuteerth S/O Raghavendracharya Gubbi 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

Anmol @ Sonya S/O Sudhakar Varute Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Madhavi W/O Venkatesh Mahajan Vs Venkatesh S/O Vishnu Mahajan

Sikandar S/O Abdul Khadar Alur Vs the State of Karnataka

Shahidbeg @ Bablu S/O Iqbalgeg Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Althaf a S/O Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh B Udapudi Vs the State of Karnataka