Dismissed

Ramakrishna T S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2021CRL.P/1081/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka refused the petitioner's application. The court found the petitioner actively participated in misappropriating Rs.1.00 crore from a bank, deeming him not entitled to bail pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; petitioner not entitled to bail.

Ramakrishna T S Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1081 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMAKRISHNA T.S. S/O. SHAMBULINGEGOWDA T.S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.60, 6^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, BSK 3^RD STAGE, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 098.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI R.A. DEVANAND, ADV., FOR SRI SUNDARAM K.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE, BANGALORE – 560 063, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.9 OF 2021 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408, 409 AND 420 OF THE IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.9 of 2021 registered by Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶22

the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on 12-1-2021, Sri Ritesh Kumar, Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bengaluru, lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police alleging that Arun Veeramalla-accused

¶24

¶25

No.1 is working as a Manager in Bank of Baroda, Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch, Bengaluru, and accused No.3 is a temporary service person of the said Bank. On the said date, accused No.1 received Rs.1.00 crore from the Currency Chest of the Bank situated at Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru, with an intention to get it towards day to day transactions of Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch. At that time, accused No.3 was present along with accused No.1. After receiving Rs.1.00 crore, accused Nos.1 and 3 neither reported nor deposited the amount in Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch. Later, the complainant came to know that accused No.1 approached Chikkajala Police alleging that the amount of Rs.1.00 crore has been robbed by unknown persons. After receipt of the complaint, the Police arrested accused No.1 and recorded voluntary statement. It is revealed that accused No.1 in collusion with other accused persons took away the amount and handed over to accused No.4. Thereby, the accused persons have swindled the amount pertaining to

¶26

¶27

the Bank. During investigation, the Police arrested the petitioner on 15-1-2021 and he has been remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He was a temporary employee of the Bank and as per the practice, the petitioner used to accompany accused No.1 whenever accused No.1 goes to withdraw the amount from main Branch. The main allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 4, where accused No.1 handed over the money to accused No.4 and in turn, the Police have seized the amount from accused No.4 and they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner is in jail from 15-1-2021 and is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court. The offences are triable by the Magistrate and are not

¶29

¶30

punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶31

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner was the main cause for shifting the money from main Branch to Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch and accused No.1 alone went to Chikkajala Police Station, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner carried the amount and handed over to accused No.4. Therefore, this petitioner along with accused No.1 actively participated in looting cash of Rs.1.00 crore pertaining to the Bank. Investigation is still under progress and amount of Rs.40.00 crore is yet to be recovered. Therefore, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶32

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of

¶33

the records, admittedly, accused No.1 was working as a Manager in Bank of Baroda, Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch, Bengaluru. Accused Nos.1 and 3 received cash of

¶34

¶35

Rs.1.00 crore from the Currency Chest of the Bank situated at Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru, to get it towards day to day transactions of Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch. However, they have not reported or deposited the amount in Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch. On the next date, the complainant received information that accused No.1 alone approached Chikkajala Police Station alleging that cash of Rs.1.00 crore has been robbed by some unknown persons. After enquiry, it is revealed that accused Nos.1 and 3 are also involved in the alleged offences. Accused No.3 carried the amount and handed over to accused No.4 and they tried to believe that the amount has been robbed by unknown persons, which clearly shows the active participation of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. During investigation, amount of Rs.60.00 lakh is recovered from accused No.4 and Rs.40.00 lakh is yet to be recovered. Investigation is pending. The bail petition filed by accused No.1 is rejected by this Court on 3-3-2021 in Criminal Petition No.1621 of 2021. Therefore,

¶36

¶37

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kvk

Ramakrishna T S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna T S v. 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

Sri. Farooque Ahmed Khan Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Sri Sanjay @ Sanju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi Vs State of Karnataka

Meenakshi Vs State of Karnataka

S M Manjunath Vs State by Mandi P S

Ivan Kambonge Vs State of Karnataka