Dismissed

C H Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2022CRL.P/9407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that given the prima facie documentary evidence of misappropriation during the petitioner's tenure and lack of investigation completion, it was not a fit case to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner before the charge sheet was filed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for enlargement on bail is rejected; liberty to approach the court after filing of the charge sheet is granted.

C H Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9407/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.H.SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING IN APMC RAJBHAVAN RAOD, BENGALURU-01 R/O GUNDAPURA ROAD GOWRIBIDANURU CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR., HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.121/2019 OF SRINIVASAPURA P.S., KOLAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

¶17

regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.121/2019 of Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar District, for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that in the complaint an allegation is made that an amount of Rs.1,21,26,739/- was misappropriated and this petitioner who was working as Secretary had indulged in misappropriating the amount.

¶20

The learned senior counsel appearing for the

¶21

petitioner would submit that earlier he was suspended from service and the Government after holding an enquiry he was reinstated. Apart from that, he is in custody from 09.11.2021

¶22

¶23

and no need of custodial trial with regard to the misappropriation is concerned. He will assist the Court and also the Investigating Officer for further investigation. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the learned senior counsel would submit that the offence is punishable below seven years. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though the FIR was registered in the year 2019, this petitioner has not assisted the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter. Further, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that there are no entries relating to income and expenditure of the Market Committee since 20.07.2018 and also receipts which have been stated in the complaint also clear that even though the cash amount was received, the same was also misappropriated. Hence, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and it is nothing but a fraud on the Government in which he is serving. The investigation is not yet complete and

¶25

¶26

there is prima facie documentary evidence against this petitioner.

¶27

In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court

¶28

Government Pleader appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the period in which this petitioner worked as In-charge Secretary i.e., from 11.06.2018 to 17.01.2019 and the learned counsel would also submit that the receipt which has been relied upon only to the extent of Rs.1 lakh.

¶29

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, particularly, the complaint given by the Assistant Director in-charge, specific allegations are made from 20.07.2018 to 28.12.2018. The pass books of Canara Bank and S.B.I. Bank disclose the transactions taken place in the name of different persons i.e., an amount of Rs.22.91 Lakhs from Canara Bank and an amount of Rs.21.46 Lakhs from S.B.I. Bank were drawn. Apart from that, receipt Nos.1010 and 1011 are issued on 02.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and

¶30

¶31

Rs.54,300/-, respectively and the said amount is not credited to the account. The allegation made in the complaint that an amount of Rs.1,21,26,739/- was misappropriated.

¶32

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that different persons have served as Secretaries from the years 2015 to 2021 and his period is very short period and having taken note of the particular period of this petitioner, the allegation in respect of this petitioner is misappropriation to the extent of Rs.22.91 Lakhs and Rs.21.46 Lakhs and also an amount of Rs.54,300/- as well as Rs.50,000/and having taken note of the material on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary power of the petitioner until the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. It is a fraud on the Department, wherein, he is working and admittedly records disclose that the lakhs of rupees are misappropriated during the period of this petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of this Court.

¶33

¶34

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The petition is rejected.

¶38

(ii) However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court after filing of the charge sheet.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

cp*

C H Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C H Sanjeev Kumar 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

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharanikumar P K Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman Pasha @ Salman Vs State by

Mr Rateesh K Vs State by Bypanahalli Ps