Allowed

Hariprashad v. the State

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021CRL.P/564/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged with cheating and misappropriation in a cooperative society case. The Court imposed stringent conditions, including appearance before the investigating officer and surrender of property for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in the event of arrest subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/-, appearance before IO within 15 days, non-interference with witnesses, and availabilit

Hariprashad Vs the State — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.564/2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Hariprashad S/o. Patel P.T. Dasegowda Aged 49 years R/o.Ramamandira Street Palahalli Village, Belagola Hobali Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District – 571 606 .. Petitioner

¶7

(By Sri Krishnappa N.R., Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

The State by Srirangapatna Police Station Rep.by SPP High Court Building Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001 .. Respondent

¶10

(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶11

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in CR.No.264/2020 of Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 of IPC.

¶12

¶13

This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.264/2020 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 of IPC.

¶16

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶17

Case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by the President of Primary Agriculture Producer Cooperative Society, Palahalli Village, Srirangapatna, the learned Magistrate, Srirangapatna referred the complaint to the police who in turn registered the case against the petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused being a Chief Executive Officer in the said Society, during his tenure between 1.5.2014 and 29.11.2018 was managing

¶18

¶19

the affairs of the society and misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,89,812.05 thereby he has cheated the society. It is further alleged that though he was not working in the society as Chief Executive Officer, he has created the documents as he is a Chief Executive Officer and got released the documents in the name of Puttamma and thereby cheated the society. After registering the case, police tried to arrest the petitioner and he has approached the Sessions Court at Mandya by filing a petition for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. The property of the petitioner has already been attached by the order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in A.B.J.No.3/20-21. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Palahalli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangaptna Taluk and

¶21

¶22

he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶23

Per contra , the learned HCGP has seriously objected the bail petition contending that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount to the tune of more than Rs.10 Lakhs thereby cheated the society. If he is granted bail, he may abscond from the case and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, and hence she prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶24

Upon considering the material and perusing the documents available on record, admittedly a private complaint came to be filed before the JMFC Court at Srirangapatna in PCR.No.81/2020 which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. who in turn registered the case against the petitioner. It is alleged that during his tenure as Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner has misappropriated more than Rs.10 Lakhs by mismanaging the affairs of the society. The allegations made against the petitioner are based on the documentary

¶25

¶26

evidence. The property of the petitioner has already been attached by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The petitioner is said to be resident of Palahalli Village, Belagola Hobali, Srirangapatna Taluk. The alleged offences are triable by the learned Magistrate and they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. When the entire material is based on documentary evidence available on record, the question of tampering of documents by the petitioner does not arise. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, no prejudice will be caused to the case of the prosecution.

¶27

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶28

The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioner, viz., Hariprashad, on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.264/2020 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

¶30

i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court.

¶31

ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

iii) He shall not indulge in similar offences strictly.

¶33

iv) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶34

v) The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as obtaining any specimen signature for getting hand writing expert’s opinion.

¶35

vi) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every day between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of one week and thereafter once in a week on every Monday

¶36

¶37

between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶38

vii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶39

viii) If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

*ck/-

Hariprashad v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprashad v. the State

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

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrika K P Vs State by Mandya West Police

Mr. Mohammed Harshad Vs the State of Karnataka by

S R Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vishruth N Raj Vs State

Rudresh Vs State of Karnataka