Allowed

Smt Sulaksha M Pednekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021CRL.P/3357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner, who was accused of misappropriation of public funds. Despite serious allegations and a prima facie case established by the charge sheet, the court noted that all other accused were on bail and ordered the petitioner's release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to execution of personal bond and complying with specific conditions including not tampering with witnesses.

Smt Sulaksha M Pednekar Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

Criminal Petition No.3357/2021

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt. Sulaksha M. Pednekar Wife of Venkatesh A Aged about 46 years Residing at: Old No.476, New No.42, 1^st Floor, 3^rd Main Road New BBMP Office Punyabhoomi Layout Kalkere Village Hormavu post Bengaluru 560 043 (By Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Ramesh V.K., learned counsel for petitioner)

¶9

.....Petitioner

¶10

And

¶11

State of Karnataka By Magadi Road Police Station Bengaluru. Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Beuildings, Bengaluru-560 001. …..Respondent (By Sri Vinayak V.S., H.C.G.P.)

¶12

¶13

This criminal petition filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.191/2019 (C.C. No.7075/2021) of Magadi Road P.S., Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 408, 409, 419, 42, 120B of IPC.

¶14

This petition coming on for orders, through video conferencing at Dharwad Bench, this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to release her on bail in Crime No.191/2019 registered by Magadi Road Police, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 419 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.Kamakshi K., Addl. District Manager of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’, for short).

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged the first information against the accused for the above offences contending that accused No.1 being the Manager of the Canara Bank, accused Nos.2 to 9 being the employees of the

¶18

¶19

Corporation and accused Nos.10 to 20 being the middle men, have misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,30,22,000/- which was released as subsidy amount to be credited to the account of the beneficiaries for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, under the Job Guarantee Scheme, and IST Scheme through Canara Bank, Kalkere Branch, Bengaluru City.

¶20

Heard Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ramesh V.K., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vinayak V.S. learned H.C.G.P. for respondent.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the FIR, serious allegations are made regarding committing of fraud and misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.6,30,22,000/-. Initially the present petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Trial Court and also before this Court and those petitions were rejected. However, the SLP filed by petitioner was also rejected directing the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court. In compliance of the same, the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court on 04.02.2021. A detailed investigation is undertaken and charge

¶22

¶23

sheet is already filed on 17.03.2021. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that except the present petitioner, all other accused i.e., accused Nos.2 to 22 are already enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even though it is contended that the petitioner along with other accused misappropriated Rs.6,30,22,000/- the first information, while filing the charge sheet, it is stated that an amount of Rs.4,43,62,000/- is misappropriated. It is stated that there are in all 275 beneficiaries who were subjected to fraud by not crediting the subsidy amount to their respective accounts. The Investigation Officer cited only CW-12 to CW-82 as the beneficiaries who are defrauded and their statements were recorded. As per the records made available by the Investigating Officer, it is only Rs.2,78,00,000/is misappropriated. Further the Investigating Officer has not produced the account statements of the Corporation or the Canara Bank or even the account statements of various beneficiaries to contend that there is entrustment of the amount and there is misappropriation.

¶25

¶26

6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since all

¶27

other accused against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail, principles of parity requires the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. There are no grounds to deny parity in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶28

Per contra , learned H.C.G.P. opposing the petition, contended that serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation are alleged against the accused. The present petitioner is the main accused who is arrayed as accused No.1. She was the Manager of Canara Bank and is the mastermind behind misappropriation of the amount which was credited by the Corporation with the Canara Bank for the purpose of crediting to the accounts of various beneficiaries. Even the internal vigilance enquiry held by Canara Bank discloses the offence committed by the petitioner. The voluminous documents produced by the Investigating Officer make out strong prima facie case against

¶29

¶30

the present petitioner. Since the petitioner is the main accused, responsible for the commission of offence of misappropriating crores of rupees which was meant to be credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries, is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶31

Learned H.C.G.P. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy¹ to contend that looking to the seriousness of the offences and misappropriation of huge public money, the accused therein was not granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the above, learned H.C.G.P. submits that the petitioner as Manager of Canara Bank was mainly responsible for misappropriation of huge amount and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Perused the materials on record including the documents filed in support of the charge sheet.

¶33

In the light of the rival submissions, the point that would arise for my consideration is,

¶34

1 (2013) 7 SCC 452

¶35

¶36

“Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for bail?”

¶37

My answer to the above point is in ‘affirmative’ for the following:

¶38

REASONS

¶39

On perusal of the materials on record, serious allegations are made against the petitioner as accused No.1. She being the Manager of the Canara Bank committed fraud and misappropriated crores of rupees which was meant to be credited to the accounts of beneficiaries under the Scheme launched by the Corporation. There is no doubt that prima facie materials are produced by the Investigating Officer by filing the charge sheet.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.P.No.5264/2020 which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.12.2020. It is stated that the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was also came to be rejected.

¶41

¶42

Thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court on 04.02.2021 and now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed on 17.03.2021.

¶43

It is not in dispute that all other accused are either on anticipatory bail or on regular bail. Even though the petitioner is a Manager of the Canara Bank and even though in the enquiry held by the Vigilance Cell of the Canara Bank it is found that the petitioner has committed fraud and misappropriation, the same cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition moved by her as the investigation is already completed. Mere making out prima facie case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the petition at this stage. No purpose would be served by rejecting the petition and keeping the petitioner in judicial custody till conclusion of the trial. Moreover, no grounds are made out to reject the petition when admittedly all other accused are on bail. The apprehension, if any, of the prosecution can be taken care by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed.

¶47

The petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.191/2019 of

¶48

Magadi Road Police is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:

¶49

i. She shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum.

¶50

ii. She shall not commit similar offences.

¶51

iii. She shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶52

iv. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required.

¶53

It is needless to state that, if in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Trial Court to seek cancellation of bail.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Naa

Smt Sulaksha M Pednekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sulaksha M Pednekar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R. Mohandas Vs Sri Devadasan

Sharanu Son of Mallikarjun Vs the State

Prabhu @ Prabhuling Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunilkumar S/O Vithalrao Dhule Vs the State of Karnataka

Nehal Ahmed S/O Mohammed Ali Sheikh Vs the State through

Mohammed Sabeer S/O Abdul Khadar Vs the State