Allowed

Shivaramu R M v. the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022CRL.P/9776/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to a retired employee facing charges of misappropriation under the IPC. The court emphasized the documentary nature of evidence and allowed bail subject to strict conditions including regular police appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to specified conditions including monthly police appearanc

Shivaramu R M Vs the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9776/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SHIVARAMU .R.M S/O LATE MOOGUREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.A-1, THRIPURA HAMSA CHAMUNDI VIHAR LAYOUT MYSURU-570 001 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.N. MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE BY C.E.N CRIME POLICE STATION, MANDYA MANDYA-571 401 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶11

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.19/2022 OF MANDYA CEN CRIME P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 408, 409, 417, 420, 465, 471, 201 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA.

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2022, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.19/2022 registered by Mandya CEN Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 420, 465, 471 and 201 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya.

¶17

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:-

¶18

The Disciplinary Authority of PES College of Engineering at Mandya and Secretary of Janatha Shikshana Trust (Regd.) has lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the audit report for the period from 2013-14 to 2021-22 i.e., upto 23.03.2022 discloses misappropriation of Rs.4,46,96,075/- from College University Account No.10532544894.

¶19

¶20

Thereafter, the college authorities have appointed an Enquiry Officer and an enquiry was held and it is alleged that charges against the present petitioner and other accused are proved, including the present and earlier Principals. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged and the petitioner apprehending his arrest, has approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and that petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and the learned SPP-I for Respondent-State along with learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, he was retired in 2017 itself and considering his services rendered since 1985, he was appointed on contract basis as an Estate Officer. He would also contend that the account alleged was personally operated account and the allegations itself

¶23

¶24

disclose that the payments were made by Demand Drafts. It is further alleged that the complainant, who is the Secretary of Janatha Shikshana Trust (Regd.) is the Father-in-Law of the present Principal and in order to save their skin, a complaint is being lodged against the present petitioner. He asserted that, all the transactions were by Demand Drafts and hence, there is no question of tampering prosecution witnesses and hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail.

¶25

Per contra, the learned SPP would contend

¶26

that, the said college of engineering was possessing Nine accounts and the complaint was pertaining to one account. It is contended that all the Eight accounts were regularly audited. But, this Ninth Account was suppressed from audit since 2011 and all the books of accounts are found missing. It is alleged that the petitioner was an Accountant and he has actively participated in commission of offences and the Books of Accounts were also not available for inspection by

¶27

¶28

the Auditing party. Hence, the learned counsel would

¶29

seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶30

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is alleged that the petitioner was initially working as FDA in the PES College of Engineering. It is also evident that, he retired from service in the year 2017 and subsequently he was appointed as an Estate Officer on consolidated salary, on contract basis. Though it is argued that the present petitioner was monitoring the entire accounts and administration, no material evidence is placed to show that he was handling the accounts. There is no material evidence to show as to who is the Accountant during the relevant period and this material evidence is missing. Apart from that, the Enquiry report discloses that the present and earlier Principals were also held responsible. But, interestingly they were spared in the complaint for the best reasons. All along it is alleged that the Audit was held from 2013-14 upto 2021-22. But, it is important to note here that, the last Audit

¶31

¶32

was admittedly held in 2011 and no Audit was held after 2011 pertaining to mis-appropriated University Bank Account pertaining to this crime. Further, admittedly the account was standing in the name of the Principal and the records disclose that the notice was also issued to the Principal. But, however subsequently, complaint was lodged against the present petitioner and others, by sparing Principals. What is the liability fixed on the Principals is not at all forthcoming, as the account was single operated account.

¶33

Apart from that, it is also evident from the records that the entire transactions were taken place through Cheques and Demand Drafts When the Transactions were made through the Cheques and Demand Drafts, then it is easy for the Investigating Officer to ascertain as to who were at the helm of affairs when the said transactions were taken place. But, instead of investigating anything in this regard, they are attempted to divert the matter. The entire

¶34

¶35

case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner is already retired from service in the year 2017 itself. No doubt, there are serious allegations regarding misappropriation of Rs.4.00 Crores, but it cannot be presumed at this juncture that the petitioner alone is responsible and it also cannot be done by a single person. However, certain responsibilities are also fixed on the Principal also and there is no explanation on the part of the Managing Body in this regard. Apart from that, as the entire matter is based on documentary evidence, question of tampering the prosecution witnesses does not arise at all.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, without expressing any opinion, the petitioner can be admitted on Anticipatory Bail. The other apprehensions raised by the other side can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

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.19/2022 registered by Mandya CEN Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 420, 465, 471 and 201 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer, subject to following conditions:-

¶40

i) Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender himself before the concerned 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;

¶41

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences directly or indirectly;

¶42

iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer whenever required for interrogation;

¶43

¶44

iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with Investigating Officer and produce all the records available in his custody for proper investigation by Investigating Agency;

¶45

v) In case, if the petitioner fails to co-operate with the Investigating Agency, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail;

¶46

vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO of the concerned Police Station on 2^nd and 4^th Saturday of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until final report is submitted.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

KGR*

¶49

CT:NR

Shivaramu R M v. the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaramu R M v. the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station

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

Sri N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Anthony Roob Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shreesha Sasithota Prabhakaran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kanyakumari Vs State of Karnataka