Allowed

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

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020CRL.P/101222/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a falsification of account case. The Court allowed the petition on a parity basis with a co-accused, subject to conditions including execution of a bond and cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail subject to execution of personal bond and cooperation in investigation.

Sri Rahul S/O Siddarth Dhote S/O Late Ramappa Vs the… — Cheque Dishonour | 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. 101222 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAHUL S/O SIDDARTH DHOTE S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT:43 YEARS, OCC: SBI EMPLOYEE R/O. NEAR LAL BAHUDDUR SHASTRI PRIMARY SCHOOL BHAVIPURA VILLAGE, CHANDRAPURA TALUK CHANDRAPURA DISTRICT – 442 402. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUNILKUMAR P. BANGARI, ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAREGAL POLICE STATION NAREGAL-582 119 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD-580 008

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.68 OF 2018 REGISTERED BY THE NAREGAL POLICE

¶14

¶15

STATION, NAREGAL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 409, 420 & 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RON IN C.C.NO.329 OF 2020.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent-State.

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.68/2018 of Naregal Police Station. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 465 of IPC.

¶20

Complaint has been lodged by one Umesh Bhimappa Vaddar alleging that a loan of Rs.3,00,000/was sanctioned to one Rudrappa S/o.Madappa Madannavar by State of India and even though a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each was drawn from his account on

¶21

¶22

13.12.2017 and 20.12.2017, the said person has not

¶23

received the amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner being the Manager of the Bank and accused No.2 being the cashier colluded with each other and drawn the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at different dates

¶24

from the account of customer Rudrappa and thereby committed misappropriation etc.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶26

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated based on a frivolous report prepared by the Branch Manager. He submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Now the investigation is completed. He further submits that the petitioner has not absconded. He was very much available and faced the enquiry and attended the hearing on the dates fixed by the enquiring authority. He submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶27

¶28

The learned HCGP opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that after conducting the enquiry, a report was submitted and based on the said enquiry report, aforesaid case has been registered. She contends that there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and the petitioner has been absconding throughout and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the present petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy of the bail order passed in respect of accused No.2, wherein this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the said accused in Crl.Petition No.101936/2008 vide order dated 16.11.2018. Case was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 04.07.2018. There is no material to show that the petitioner has been absconding. Since the allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 are

¶30

¶31

common, petitioner is entitled for the relief on the

¶32

ground of parity. Hence the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

a) Petition is allowed.

¶35

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.68/2018 of Naregal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 465 of IPC, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, at Ron in C.C.No.329/2020, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) The petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks from today and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶37

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation and he shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶38

¶39

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, in any manner.

¶40

iv) The petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Lad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rahul S/O Siddarth Dhote S/O Late Ramappa 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

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