Allowed

Smt. Mamatha J., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022CRL.P/2182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking bail for an employee accused of corruption and fraud. The High Court allowed the petition, releasing the petitioner on bail subject to standard conditions, noting custody was unnecessary as investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and jurisdiction.

Smt. Mamatha J., Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2182/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MAMATHA J., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O K.RANJITH KUMAR R/AT NO.43, J.P.RESIDENCY ASHOK NAGARA VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.256/2021 OF HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.256/2021 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Vishveshwarapuram SubDivision, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶21

that this petitioner being an employee of the High Court of Karnataka as Second Division Assistant along with accused No.2 indulged in committing fraud on the public that High Court is going to allot sites and properties which are not having documents for 50% of the value of the property and the same will be allotted within 35 to 40 days and there are 7000 files and the said allotment proceedings will be there from June, 2021 to

¶22

¶23

December, 2021 and the same will be conducted once in 5 years and the High Court will not only allot sites to its employees but, also to others and those, who are having interest in purchasing the sites, can approach them. Even though, there is no such proceedings in the institution, collected an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- by way of transfer of amount to her bank account and in turn, the accused No.2 also indulged in the same act along with this petitioner. Out of the amount of Rs.47,00,000/-, this petitioner has received an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and accused No.2 has received an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, which is evident from the bank records. Hence, this petitioner along with accused No.2 committed fraud and therefore, the police after investigation have filed the chargesheet.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶25

submit that this petitioner is in custody from 30.01.2022 and investigation has already been completed and no need of further custodial trial. The counsel would also submit that, even as per the charge-sheet, she has received Rs.16,10,100/- through bank

¶26

¶27

and other allegation is that, she has received an amount of Rs.9,90,000/- and the accused No.2 received an amount of Rs.26,20,000/- and the records also reveal that this petitioner has transferred the amount to the account of accused No.2 and the remaining amount is also paid through cash to accused No.2 and she has not received any benefit in the said allegation. Hence, she may be enlarged on bail. The counsel would also submit that this petitioner has been suspended and she is having two minor children and she has to take care of the children.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that this petitioner has not only indulged in committing fraud but, also used the name of this institution. Apart from that, shared the information of this Court with the other accused and also C.Ws.1 and 2. Merely because the charge-sheet is filed, the same is not a ground to enlarge her on bail.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, this Court has already rejected the bail

¶31

¶32

petition of accused No.2 when the accused No.2 approached this Court invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.P.No.10202/2021. While rejecting the bail petition of accused No.2, this Court has observed that the matter has to be probed and the presence of the accused No.2 is required for further investigation in the matter.

¶33

Having considered the material on record, the

¶34

allegation against this petitioner is that she has received an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and the documents also reveal that the amount which was received by her was transferred to accused No.2 and it is the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also paid the amount by

¶35

way of cash in favour of accused No.2. Having considered the material on record and the allegation against this petitioner that she has received an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and the document is also evident that out of the said amount, she has also transferred the amount in favour of accused No.2 and the investigation is already completed and having taken note of the gravity of the offence and also the fact that this petitioner is the

¶36

¶37

employee of this institution working as Second Division Assistant, the question of fleeing away from justice does not arise since, she is a permanent employee of this Court. Further, even though the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that this petitioner has used the name of this institution, in order to substantiate the same, no document is collected by the Investigating Officer.

¶38

Regarding fraud is concerned, the matter has to be tested in trial and there is no need of custodial trial of the petitioner, since investigation has already been completed. Hence, having considered the factual aspects of the case, gravity of the offence and punishment, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶41

petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime

¶42

¶43

No.256/2021 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station,

¶44

Vishveshwarapuram Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC., subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶46

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶48

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against her is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Smt. Mamatha J., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamatha J., 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

Master Pavan S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C S Tyagarajan Vs Sri B S Laxmipathy

Sridhar S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Adilakshmi Vs Mr Ramesh Babu

Sri L Chandrashekar Vs Sri M S Jayaramegowda

The State by Vs Khader Hussain @ Suresh @ Khader