Allowed

Arti D/O Tatyasaheb Gouranna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2019CRL.P/101937/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail were allowed for multiple accused implicated in financial irregularities involving a cooperative society. The court imposed conditions including furnishing a personal bond and cooperating with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all listed accused subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000, cooperation in investigation, and attendance in police station.

Arti D/O Tatyasaheb Gouranna Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101935/2019

¶6

C/w.

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.101936/2019, 101937/2019, 101938/2019 AND 101939/2019

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.101935/2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BALASAHEB S/O NINGAPPA NAIK AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BELAVI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶11

BHIMRAI S/O BALAPPA JOND AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ANKALGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591101.

¶12

SANJEEV S/O APPASAHEB NAIK AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BELAVI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶13

SIDALINGAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA MUNNOLI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶14

¶15

SHIVANGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶16

MAHANTESH S/O DUNDAPPA TALWAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶17

... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CHIKODI POLICE STATION, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶21

... RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶23

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS. 4, 5, 9, 10, 27 & 36) U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C. BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PETITIONERS PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL. MISC. NO.2006/2019 DATED 16.09.2019, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 406, 415, 417, 419, 465, 467, 471, 470, 477-A, 420 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC IN CHIKODI P.S. CRIME NO.83/2019 AND ALSO IN P.C.NO.238/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, CHIKODI.

¶25

¶26

CRL.P NO 101936 OF 2019

¶27

BETWEEN

¶28

SHRI.SANGEETA S KOLHAPUR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE BANK MANAGER, R/AT.SHRI BASAVESHWAR MULTIPURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD., ANJANEYA NAGAR BRANCH M.M. EXTENSION, BELAGAVI

¶29

SMT.NETRAVTI KRISHNA PUJERI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE BANK MANAGER, R/AT.SHRI BASAVESHWAR MULTIPURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI CITY BRANCH GOVT. EMPLOYEES COMPLEX CHAVAT GALLI, BEHIND DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM BELAGAVI DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶30

... PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH (CHIKODI P.S.), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.

¶34

... RESPONDENT ---

¶35

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.18 &19, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 415, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 470, 417, 477-A R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, CRIME NO.238/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, CHIKODI. .

¶37

¶38

CRL.P NO 101937 OF 2019

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

ARTI D/O TATYASAHEB GOURANNA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591101.

¶41

RAJSHREE W/O SHIDALINGAPPA MUNNOLI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.0

¶42

... PETITIONERS

¶43

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CHIKODI POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶46

... RESPONDENT

¶47

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶48

¶49

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.11 & 28) BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.2009/2019 DATED 16.09.2019, FOR 406, 415, 417, 419, 465, 467, 471, 470, 477-A, 420 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC IN CHIKODI P.S. CRIME NO.83/2019 (IN P.C.NO.238/2019) PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, CHIKODI.

¶50

¶51

CRL.P NO 101938 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

¶52

SHIVPRASAD S/O DUNDAPPA KAMATGI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.

¶53

... PETITIONER

¶54

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶55

AND:

¶56

STATE OF KARNATAKA BT POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, CHIKODI TOWN POLICE STATION, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶57

... RESPONDENT

¶58

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶59

¶60

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.8 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.2007/2019 DATED 16.09.2019, FOR THE OFFENCE SP/U/S 406, 415, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THROUGH CHIKODI P.S., IN CRIME NO.83/2019.

IN CRL.P.101939/2019

BETWEEN:

SIDDAGOUDA S/O MAHADEV MATTANAVAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, SANKESHWAR BRANCH, R/O: YAMAKANMARADI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591246.

¶65

SHIVASHANKAR S/O SHIVARAYAPPA MANGOJI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, YARAGATTI BRANCH, R/O: MARADIMATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591246.

¶66

... PETITIONERS

¶67

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶68

AND:

¶69

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, CHIKODI TOWN POLICE STATION, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶70

... RESPONDENT

¶71

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶72

¶73

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.21 & 23 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.2008/2019 DATED 16.09.2019, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 415, 417, 419, 465, 467, 471, 470, 477 & 420 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THROUGH CHIKODI P.S., IN CRIME NO.83/2019.

¶74

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

¶75

¶76

COMMON ORDER

¶77

Criminal Petition No.101935/2019 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 27 and 36, Criminal Petition No.101936/2019 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos. 18 and 19, Criminal Petition No.101937/2019 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos. 11 and 28, Criminal Petition No.101938/2019 is filed by petitioner/accused No.8 and Criminal Petition No.101939/2019 by the petitioners/accused Nos.21 and 23, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.83/2019 and private complaint No.238/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 415, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 470, 477A and 420 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC.

¶78

The facts leading to these petitions are that a private complaint was filed by the Regional Manager,

¶79

¶80

The Karnataka State Souharda Federal Cooperative Ltd., Bengaluru, having its region at Belagavi region, before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent-Police have registered the case and have taken up for investigation. On registering the case, police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners/accused.

¶81

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, perused the records available at this Stage.

¶82

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the private complaint was filed on false grounds and alleging financial irregularities without there being any complaint by the

¶83

¶84

general public or persons who have got transactions with the Society. These petitioners/accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case without there being any prima facie case. In the event of arrest, the petitioners/accused will be put to great hardship and injustice. They are ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail.

¶85

Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that petitioners/accused and some other accused who were the Directors, office bearers and officials of the Society have committed financial irregularities by misusing funds collected from the public and depositors. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail.

¶86

As could be seen from the complaint averments made in the private complaint, the allegations are as under:

¶87

¶88

a) Accused No.6 other Directors and office bearers have registered the said Society with an ulterior motive to collect the deposits from the members and customers and make use of the said funds for their personal gains.

¶89

b) Accused No.6 being founder Chairman and accused No.32 being CEO of the Society have committed serious irregularities. Appointment of CEO and AGM was done without approval from the Federation.

¶90

c) Board of Directors, CEO and AGM with criminal intention to dupe the members/customers of the Society have collected the huge amount of Rs.81,61,94,637.80 paise and in order to escape from their liabilities, have got appointed the Accused No.38 to 48 to take over the management of the Society.

¶91

d) Under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakara Act, 1997, transactions shall have to be done only with the members, but the

¶92

¶93

Branch Managers and CEO have collected the money from the public and utilized the said amount for their personal purposes.

¶94

e) Reserve Fund, craves out of the yearly profits i.e. 25% of the total profits per year has been mis-utilized by some of the directors and office bearers instead of depositing the said amount either in DCC Bank, Scheduled or Nationalized Bank.

¶95

f) Some of the accused persons have advanced the loans without taking appropriate securities, without documents and without following any due procedure of law and in violation of the Rules and Regulations of KSS Act.

¶96

g) Accused No.6 and 32 have managed to take hefty commissions for advancement of the loans and have got amassed wealth.

¶97

h) Some of the excess amounts of the investments have been deposited with few banks where their relatives have got nexus.

¶98

¶99

i) As per report of Chartered Accountant, Rs.5,85,61,124/- was advanced which is in excess as per limits stipulated.

¶100

j) There are no official records for retaining the accounts and the accused have siphoned off the amounts for their illegal purposes.

¶101

k) Rs.4 Crores have been retained as deposits and have made only the paper adjustments.

¶102

l) Report of the Inspecting officer discloses that loan amounts were advanced in an unscientific way without taking appropriate securities and have also invested the entire amounts of the reserved fund in working capital of Souharda Sahakari and invested the amounts in unsecured loans, thereby they have committed criminal breach of trust.

¶103

m) No legal action initiated against closes aids of the office bearers of the accused who have borrowed the huge amounts.

¶104

¶105

During the course of the arguments, learned

¶106

counsel for the petitioners have furnished some of the documents i.e. Audit reports, Borrowers’ list, recovery proceedings initiated against the borrowers who have committed default and records pertaining to the loan transaction on the security of mortgaged property. Relying on these documents, learned counsel submitted that there are no financial irregularities whatsoever and these accused have not at all involved in any fraudulent acts.

¶107

One of the documents produced by the counsel for the petitioners is the audit report submitted by the Chartered Accountant, wherein it is stated that the percentage of profit has come down compared to the previous year. The suggestion made by the Chartered Accountant is that, the Society has not taken decision or action despite default committed by some of the borrowers in repayment. Some of the lapses are also

¶108

¶109

pointed out. But as far as allegations regarding the financial irregularities are concerned, the learned HCGP

¶110

has tried to point out that some of the borrowers have availed the loan 5 or 6 times by pledging or offering the security of same property in collusion with the accused persons. There is collusion between the accused persons and some of the borrowers, who have taken loan to an extent of crores, without offering security. No doubt, these allegations are in respect of some other irregularities said to have been committed. It is pertinent to note that the general public or depositors or

¶111

the members of the Society have not raised any objections or made any complaints. At this stage, it is needless to make the elaborate discussions as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶112

Generally, anticipatory bail would be granted

¶113

in the anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases. Power to refuse the anticipatory bail is not to be

¶114

¶115

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.

¶116

The object of the bail is to secure the accused persons at the trial on reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered as punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand to the trial when called upon.

¶117

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

¶118

¶119

in the event of granting bail, the petitioners/accused persons are likely to interfere with the investigation. The said objection may be set-right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶120

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds to grant bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶121

ORDER

¶122

Petitions are allowed . Petitioners/accused Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 27, 36, 18, 19, 11, 28, 8, 21 and 23 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On their appearance, Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail subject to following conditions:

¶123

¶124

i. The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶125

ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶126

iii. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation;

¶127

iv. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses;

¶128

v. In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of similar offence, the present bail order shall stand cancelled;

¶129

¶130

vi. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent-Chikodi Police Station on every Monday until submission of the final report.

¶131

Violation of any of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.

¶132

Sd/JUDGE

¶133

gab

Arti D/O Tatyasaheb Gouranna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti D/O Tatyasaheb Gouranna 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

Mahantesh B Udapudi Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimappa v. Halki S/O Vitthal Halki Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnuteerth S/O Raghavendracharya Gubbi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Sangappa S/O Maleppa Bashetti Vs Smt.Mahananda W/O Sangappa Bashetti

Shivprasad S/O Dundappa Kamatgi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Vishal @ Shahu Daulatakar Vs the State of Karnataka