A criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail regarding charges of cheating and misappropriation of public funds was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail; criminal petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100522/2021
BETWEEN:
R.PAKEERAPPA S/O.R.RAMAPPA, AGE-39 YEARS, OCC-EX-BILL COLLECTOR OF SUSHEELA NAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O.SUSHEELA NAGAR VILLAGE, TALUK-SANDUR-583 119, BALLARI DISTRICT.
…….. PETITIONER
(BY SRI: S.S.BETURMANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANDUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011.
…… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.30/2020 REGISTERED BY SANDUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 426 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SANDUR.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.30/2020 registered by Sandur Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 419, 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) after the private complaint filed by the complainant-Sri D.Mallikarjuna was referred for investigation.
3
Schedule Caste and he has studied only up to S.S.L.C. He managed to fabricate the documents for the purpose of getting the job. It is stated that he was appointed on 16.11.2010 and thereafter worked as Bill Collector upto 2017 and during the said period, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.25,035/-. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of Chief Executive Officer of Ballari Zilla Panchayath and other competent authorities. But in spite of that, no complaint came to be registered against the present petitioner. Therefore, he lodged the Private Complaint before the Trial Court against the accused for the above said offences.
complaint for investigation to Sandur Police Station. Police registered the Crime No.30/2020 against the accused for the above said offences and the investigation is undertaken.
petitioner and Sri Ramesh B. Chigari, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
4
the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The complainant is no way concerned to the Gram Panchayath, where the petitioner was working. The petitioner never fabricated any documents nor committed cheating, nor he has misappropriated the public fund. No complaint whatsoever was lodged by any of the officials relating to the Gram Panchayath. The account of the Gram Panchayath is being audited from several years and there is nothing to suggest that there was misappropriation of the amount. Petitioner is
the permanent resident of Susheel Nagar village. He is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5
learned Magistrate, but the petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case. Unless the presence of petitioner is secured and he is subjected to interrogation, nothing could be done in relation to the matter. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
counsel for the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the
following:
R E A S O N S
serious nature. It is stated that even though he does not belong to scheduled caste, he managed to secure the post of Bill Collector in Susheel Nagar Gramapanchayath and worked
there since 2010 to 2017 by fabricating the documents by misrepresenting. It is also alleged that while working as Bill Collector, he has misappropriated the amount of about
6
Rs.25,000/- and committed the said offences. Investigation is at the initial stage. Admittedly, this petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the allegation of misappropriation of the public fund, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ckk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. given allegations of misrepresentation and misappropriation of public funds?
Whether the petitioner's absence elicited after registration of case precludes grant of bail?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. PAKEERAPPA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
