Allowed

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022CRL.P/8867/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition for anticipatory bail was filed by a retired public servant accused of misappropriating funds under IPC Section 409. The Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to execute a bond, deposit cash security, and submit specimen signatures for forgery verification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/-, cash security of Rs.1,00,000/-, surrender within 15 days, and monthly attendance.

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8867/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. M.N. HARISH, M.Com., LLB., ASST. DIRECTOR OF TOURISM (RETD.), S/O LATE M.E. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR EXTENSION, RAMANAGARA CITY-562159 AADHAR NO.509981246708

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA TOWN, REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.79/2022 OF RAMANAGARA TOWN P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420, 465, 468 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed by Accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.79/2022 of Ramanagara Town Police Station, Ramanagara District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468 read with 34 of IPC.

¶17

The brief factual matrix of the prosecution case are that, the petitioner was working as Assistant Director in Tourism Department from 04.08.2021 to 25.05.2022 and he handed over the charge on 25.05.2022 and retired from his post on 31.05.2022. It is also asserted that on 28.05.2022, the Amruth Mahostav was celebrated and during the said period though he was not holding charge, he issued cheques in favour of unrelated persons regarding expenses pertaining to Amruth Mahotsav, even after he handing

¶18

¶19

over charge and thereby it is alleged that, he along with

¶20

other accused, has misappropriated a sum of Rs.17,60,000/- from the Accounts pertaining to the Department. In this context, a complaint came to be lodged by the Assistant Director, Additional In-charge Officer of Kannada and Cultural Department, Ramanagara and on the basis of the said complaint, the said crime came to be registered.

¶21

The petitioner apprehending his arrest, has

¶22

approached the jurisdictional Judge with a petition seeking anticipatory bail and that petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Heard arguments advanced by the learned

¶24

counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶25

5. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is an undisputed that the petitioner was in-

¶26

¶27

charge Additional Assistant Director of Department of Kannada and Cultural Department, Ramanagara District from 04.08.2021 to 25.05.2022. He filed an affidavit stating that, during his tenure, he has not issued any cheques to any banks and the cheques, which alleged to have been issued, were forged cheques. His further contention is that, Amrut Mahotsav was celebrated on 28.05.2022 ie., is, after he handing over charge. However, it is an admitted fact that the SB Account was held in the name of the said Department and Assistant Director was the person to operate the said Account. After the funds were credited to the said account in respect of the said function of Amrut Mahotsav, by issuing five cheques, the said amount was withdrawn to the tune of Rs.17,60,000/-. Though the petitioner/Accused all along alleged that the cheques which have been passed were bearing his forged signatures, it is necessary to note here that, the Bank has not returned any single cheque on the ground of variation

¶28

¶29

in the signature. Admittedly, at the time of taking charge, the petitioner has given specimen signatures in the Bank and he ought to have received the cheque book and after handing over the charge, he was bound to return the cheque book, with remaining check leaves, to the incumbent officer. But, he has not produced any document to show that, he has returned or handed-over any cheque leaves or cheque book on 25.05.2021, when he handed over the charge nor he has produced any document to show that at the time of taking charge, he has not received any cheque book. These facts establish that, though he makes counter allegations regarding his signature on the cheque leaves have been forged, but the bank has never asserted regarding forgery and it is not the case of prosecution also. It is now for the petitioner to establish that, in fact the signature found on the disputed cheques does not belong to him and they are forged one. Except filing an affidavit stating that, he has not signed any cheque/s during his tenure as in-

¶30

¶31

charge Assistant Director, he has not placed any material in that regard.

¶32

However, it is evident that the petitioner is a retired public servant. It is also submitted that his wife is also a public servant. The misappropriated amount is Rs.17,60,000/-. The entire case is depending on documentary evidence. Under such circumstances, question of tampering the evidence does not arise at all. Hence, considering these aspects, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions and giving him opportunity to prove his innocence. Hence, he has to submit an application by giving his specimen signatures before the Investigating Officer to ascertain the forgery as alleged. However, considering the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to direct the petitioner to offer cash security before the concerned Court. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.79/2022 of Ramanagara Town Police Station, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468 read with 34 of IPC, on his executing a 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 concerned Investigating Officer and depositing cash surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before concerned court, subject to following conditions:-

¶36

i) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in the event of his surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release him on bail, as directed.

¶37

ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required for

¶39

¶40

interrogation and co-operate with the Investigating Agency for proper investigation of the case.

¶41

iv) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶42

v) The petitioner shall deposit cash security of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before the jurisdictional Court, before which the crime is pending, within 15 days after his release from custody on anticipatory bail, and he shall also submit an application to the Investigating Agency by giving his specimen signatures, for the purpose of investigation.

¶43

vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on 1^st and 15^th day of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till submission of the final report.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

KGR* CT:NR

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb 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

Rafiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Anthoni Joseph Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Anthony Roob Vs the State of Karnataka

Revannegowda U T Vs the State of Karnataka