Allowed

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2020CRL.P/101018/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of two criminal petitions (Crl.P.Nos.101017/2020 & 101018/2020) filed by Panchayat Development Officers. They sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of IPC regarding misappropriation of funds. The court allowed the petitions, ordering release on personal bond and conditions to prevent tampering wit

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed for anticipatory bail. Petitioners to execute personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties and satisfy other listed conditions.

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P.NOS.101017/2020 C/W 101018/2020

¶6

CRL.P.NO.101017/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. ANJINAPPA S/O DURUGAPPA AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PDO BELLIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: SANDURGERE, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUMANGALA A CHAKALABBI, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH CHIGATERI PS), REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409 AND 420 OF IPC IN CHIGATERI P.S.CRIME NO.4/2020.

¶15

CRL.P.NO.101018/2020

¶16

BETWEEN

¶17

S.M. VEERESH S/O S.M. KOTRADEVARU AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PDO NAGATIBASAPURA GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: TELAGI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI. ... PETITIONER

¶18

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A CHAKALABBI, ADV.)

¶19

AND

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH CHIGATERI PS), REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the

¶25

respondent-State.

¶26

Petitioner in Crl.P.No.101017/2020 is accused No.3 and petitioner in Cr.P.No.101018/2020 is accused No.1.

¶27

Petitioners are seeking to release them on anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered in Crime No.4/2020 of Chigateri Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC.

¶28

Complaint is lodged by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappannalli. It is alleged that P.D.O.,

¶29

¶30

President and Officers of the Gram Panchayat, Mattihalli, without making action plan and N.M.R. and without following the guidelines, created bills, though payments are not made to the laborers and issued cheques in the name of third persons and encashed it. Further, they purchased the electrical goods etc., water supply goods, without maintaining the stock and without the approval of Technical Engineer. The said accused have not maintained the vouchers and misutilised the funds in various financial schemes, to the tune of Rs.1,15,58,724/- which was released by the Government for Development of Gram panchayat and thus, caused loss to the State Exchequer by cheating the Government.

¶31

The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 1 respectively. They are said to be

¶32

¶33

working as Panchayat Development Officers

¶34

(P.D.O.) during the relevant time.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the entire allegations are false. The concerned officials have created a concocted story with a sole object of harassing the petitioners. The petitioners are innocent and law abiding persons. They are ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. She further submits that the enquiry report has been now stayed by this Court. Accused Nos.5,7, 9, 10 and 13 have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, she submits that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail on similar terms.

¶36

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently opposed grant of bail to the

¶37

petitioners contending that the investigation is

¶38

¶39

still under progress and in the event of release

¶40

of the petitioners, they may tamper with the evidence and hamper the prosecution case.

¶41

It is not in dispute that this Court has

¶42

granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 9, 10 and 13. The copies of the bail order passed in respect of

¶43

the above accused have been placed on record.

¶44

This Court in WP No.138417/2020 by order dated 30/7/2020 has stayed all further proceedings.

¶45

In the above circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for the relief they have sought. The apprehension on the part of the learned HCGP can be safeguarded by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) Petition is allowed.

¶48

¶49

b) In the event of arrest of the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.4/2020 of Chigateri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of IPC, they shall be released, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each (Rupees Five lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial court;

¶51

(ii) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court;

¶52

(iii) The petitioners shall furnish list of immovable property held by him to the said Court.

¶53

(iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat

¶54

¶55

to any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶56

(v) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer.

¶57

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶58

(vii) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of their order.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Vmb

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru 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

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao 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

Siddalingesh S/O Chansangappa Kudleppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Anjinappa S/O Durugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesab @ Raju S/O Imamsab Manikbai Vs the State of Karnataka