Allowed

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020CRL.P/100146/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Dharwad allowed a criminal petition under S. 438 Cr.P.C. granting anticipatory bail to a retired bank manager accused of misappropriation, subject to specific conditions regarding cooperation with investigation and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; accused shall be released on bail if arrested, subject to executing a bond and complying with conditions including cooperation with investigation.

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 100146 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PARASHURAM S/O KHANDOJIRAO DUMMAL AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RTD. MANAGER, PCARD BANK, YELBURGA, R/O: MARADAVARA ONI, GAJENDRAGADA, DIST: GADAG.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. GEETHA K. M @ PAWAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELBURGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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 ALLOW THE PETITION AND IN THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE YELBURGA POLICE STATION, ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.85/2019 IN FIR

¶15

¶16

NO.177/2019 OF YELBURGA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT KOPPAL FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.120(B), 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 478 & 482, OF IPC R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, WITH SUCH CONDITIONS WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE IMPOSED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶21

This petition is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.85/2019 (FIR No.177/2019) of Yelburga Police Station, seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory

¶22

bail.

¶23

A private complaint was filed by the Manager, Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Yelburga against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 478 and 482 of

¶24

¶25

IPC. The same was referred to police for investigation and aforesaid case was registered.

¶26

The allegations against the petitioner is that while he was working as Manager of PCARD Bank, Yelburga and during his tenure of service between 01.07.2012 to 30.04.2018, he misappropriated bank fund amounting to Rs.25,99,663/-. Out of the said amount, petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and he has to pay the balance amount to the tune of Rs.19,49,663/-. Further, he has created false document and cheated the Bank etc.

¶27

The learned HCGP opposed grant of bail to

¶28

the petitioner contending that the investigation is in progress and in the event of release of the petitioner on bail, he may destroy the evidence and he may not co-operate with the investigation. She further submits that there is a prima-facie case against the

¶29

¶30

petitioner and therefore he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶31

The complainant is working as Incharge

¶32

Manager, PCARD Bank, at Yelburga. It is alleged that the petitioner while working as Manager of the Bank, from 01.07.2012 to 30.04.2018, misappropriated an

¶33

amount of Rs.25,99,663/-. Hence, several notices were issued to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner deposited part amount out of the misappropriated fund but still there is a balance of Rs.19,49,663/-.

¶34

According to the prosecution, the

¶35

misappropriation has taken place from 01.07.2012 to 30.04.2018. The complaint has been lodged on 23.08.2019. The petitioner is now retired from service. According to the prosecution, after retirement of the petitioner from the Manager post, he

¶36

¶37

gave charge to one A.S.Kalageri, but he did not render any accounts. Subsequently, for verification of accounts, matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Koppal. The Enquiry Officer after verifying all the account books etc., of bank gave report dated 22.03.2019 stating that during the tenure of accused as Manager of PCARD Bank of Yelburga, they have noticed misappropriation to the of Rs.19,49,663/-.

¶38

As already observed, the petitioner has been

¶39

retired from service. The allegations made are subject to the out-come of investigation. There is no question of petitioner tampering with the evidence as he is not in-charge of the Bank at present. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following order.

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

a) Petition is allowed.

¶43

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. No.85/2019 of (FIR No.177/2019) of Yelburga Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 478 and 482 of IPC, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶44

I. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of ten days from today and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶45

II. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, either directly or indirectly.

¶46

III. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for

¶47

¶48

the purpose of investigation as and when required.

¶49

IV. The petitioner shall furnish the proof of his correct address and shall intimate the change in address, if any.

¶50

V. The petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

lad

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao v. the 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

Prasad G.L.V. S/O Baktavasthala Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajjaiah S @ Ajjaya S/O Basavaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

Mainuddin S/O Imamsab Bankapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Ninganagouda S/O Rudragouda Patil Vs the Department of Mines and Geology

Sri.Murali Vitalsa Solanke Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul S/O Siddarth Dhote S/O Late Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka