Allowed

Raghu. N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023CRL.P/942/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two anticipatory bail petitions filed by government employees accused of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation under the IPC. The court directed the petitioners to join the investigation immediately for limited custodial interrogation of up to 12 hours to collect documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; petitioners directed to join investigation for limited custodial interrogation; enlarged on bail on fine of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties.

Raghu. N Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 942 OF 2023

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1041 OF 2023

¶10

IN CRL.P NO.942/2023

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by C SOWMYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

RAGHU. N S/O. NINGANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CESCOM, O AND M, HOLENARASIPURA SUB DIVISION, HOLENARASIPURA,

¶14

DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 211.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HASSAN,

¶19

CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,

¶20

¶21

CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶22

TALUKA AND DISTRICT HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA.,HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.44/2022 OF HASSAN CEN CRIME P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 409, 420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO.1041/2023

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

GANESH.S, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CESCOM, O & M HOLENARASIPURA SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. MOHANA KUMARA D.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 01.

¶35

…RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA.,HCGP)

¶37

¶38

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Heard Sri. Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.942/2023, Sri.Mohankumara D, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.1041/2023 and Sri. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶41

4 - CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶42

These two petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in respect of Crime No.44/2022 on the file of Hassan CEN Crime Police Station on 16.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

¶43

The petitioners were admittedly the employees of CHESCOM. At the relevant point of time i.e., in the year 2015, the petitioners have discharged their official duty in CHESCOM and allegations against them reveals that these two petitioners have misappropriated the amount collected from customers of CESCOM.

¶44

After registering the case, the petitioners approached the District Court for grant of bail, which was turned down by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hassan by order dated 11.01.2023 in Crl. Misc. No.1397/2022 which came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsels for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners were suspended from their

¶46

5 - CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶47

employment and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the documentary evidence is not well-founded and they are prepared to co-operate with the Investigating officer and sought for anticipatory bail.

¶48

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes the bail petition.

¶49

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶50

Admittedly, the incident has occurred in the year 2015. Soon after, the misappropriation came to be noticed by the higher officials of CHESCOM. The petitioners have been suspended and departmental enquiry proceedings is pending against the petitioners herein.

¶51

The nature of the crime alleged against the petitioners basically revolves around the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence. Since the petitioners have been suspended from the service, the possibility of tampering the documentary evidence is remote.

¶52

¶53

CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶54

Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are not available to the investigation agency whereby the investigation is also crippled, directing the petitioners to join the investigation and undergo a limited period of time of custodial interrogation would meet the ends of the justice.

¶55

Accordingly, without further discussions on the merits of the case, the following order is passed:

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

The Criminal Petitions are allowed .

¶58

Petitioners are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2023 at 10.00 am;

¶59

The Investigation officer is at liberty to take the petitioners to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day before 5.00 p.m.;

¶60

Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation agency by furnishing their handwriting signature and thumb impression etc., as is required by the investigation agency. If any such incriminating materials are obtained in such custodial interrogation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file additional supplementary charge sheet alleged under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,

¶61

CRL.P No. 942 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 1041 of 2023

¶62

¶63

the petitioners are to be enlarged on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer;

¶64

Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly;

¶65

Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly;

¶66

Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Hassan District without prior permission;

¶67

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

SMC

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 STK

Raghu. N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu. N v. the 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

Sri. Umar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Ummarkunhi @ Mohammedkunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rani Vs State by Banasawadi Police Station

Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Chikkanarasaiah Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar P.S.

Umaidh M Vs the State of Karnataka