Allowed

Sri Malleshappa G So Late Basavanagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020CRL.P/101297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to a Gram Panchayat President accused of cheating and misappropriation of funds. Bail was subject to posting bond, appearance, property details, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to personal bond of Rs.5,00,000, appearance, property disclosure, and non-interference with witnesses.

Sri Malleshappa G So Late Basavanagouda Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101297 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MALLESHAPPA.G S/O. LATE BASAVANAGOUDA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HAGARISIRANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DIST: BALLARI. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. AKKASALI VEERANNA., ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I. CHIGATERI P.S., TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI, BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CHIGATERI P.S. CR.NO.0004/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & CJM COURT, HARAPANAHALLI (THE THAN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT) NOW IN BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.406,

¶14

¶15

409 AND 420 OF IPC AND PRAYED TO ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶19

the learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner / accused No.2 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 and 420 of IPC.

¶21

Complaint is lodged by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappanahalli. It is alleged that P.D.O., President and Officers of the Gram Panchayat, Mattihalli, without making action plan and N.M.R. and without following the guidelines, created

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

The petitioner arraigned as accused No.2 was

¶25

the president of Mathihalli Gram Panchayat during the year 2017 to 2019.

¶26

This Court has granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 9, 10 and 13. Further, accused No.1 and 3 were also enlarged on bail in Crl. Petition No.101018/2020

¶27

¶28

and Crl.Petition No.101017/2020 respectively. It is

¶29

also brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings initiated against the accused persons have been stayed by an order dated 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.138417/2020. Hence, the petitioner is also

¶30

entitled for the relief he has sought for on the same terms and conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a) Petition is allowed.

¶33

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioneraccused No.2 in Crime No.4/2020 of Chigateri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of IPC, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the

¶35

¶36

likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial court;

¶37

(ii) The petitioner 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;

¶38

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

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶40

(v) The petitioner 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.

¶41

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

lad

Sri Malleshappa G So Late Basavanagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Malleshappa G So Late Basavanagouda 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

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayalakshmi K.B. W/O Late Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Veeresh S/O Prakash Sotnal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanu S/O. Rajesab Mannanayak Vs the State of Karnataka