Vinod B R., Vs the State of Karnataka

BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION, ARSIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC Digitally signed PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT by NANDINI BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. MS Location: HIGH 2. SAJIN T. COURT OF MANAPURAM FINANCE LTD. KARNATAKA MANAPURAM HOUSE A.O VALAPAD TRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA - 680 567.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP SRI ANIX JOSE ANTONY, ADV., FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC PRAYING TO ORDER FOR THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.162/2024 REGISTERED BY ARSIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT AGAINST THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:11884 CRL.P No. 1337 of 2025

¶20

PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 316(2), 316(4), 318(2), 318(3), 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn) JMFC COURT AT, ARASIKERE, ON SUCH TERMS AN CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused No.2 in Crime No.162/2024 registered by Arasikere Town Police Station, Hassan District, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(2), 318(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.162/2024 was registered by Arasikere Town Police Station, Hassan District, for the aforesaid offences against Madhu and others on the basis of the first information dated 06.12.2024 received from Sajin S/o Tanganadar, Area Manger of Mannapuram Finance Limited, Hassan. Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused no.2 in the FIR. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.1289/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 06.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:11884 CRL.P No. 1337 of 2025

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as assistant branch manager in the financing company. Petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only for the reason that he was the employee of the financing company in which the alleged fraud had taken place. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant who was permitted to assist the prosecution, have opposed the petition. They jointly submit that investigation of the case is under progress and interrogation of the accused is very much necessary since misappropriated gold and cash is required to be recovered from them. They submit that the allegations against accused no.1 and the petitioner herein are similar and the coordinate bench of this Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of accused no.1 in Crl.P.No.209/2025. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶31

The first informant in the present case is the Area Chief of Mannapuram Finance Limited, Hassan, and the accused persons are all the employees of Mannapuram Finance Limited, Arasikere Branch, Hassan District. According to the first information, when the first informant visited the branch office of Mannapuram Finance at

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:11884 CRL.P No. 1337 of 2025

¶34

Arasikere, he found that the gold which was pledged by the customers of the finance company who availed loan, was not deposited in the locker of the financing company, and on the other hand, the accused persons had re-pledged the said jewellery in the name of their friends and relatives and misused the gold jewellery and also misappropriated the amount. As per the averments in the first information, gold jewellery worth Rs.18,74,488/- was misused by the accused persons, and in addition to the same, cash of Rs.25,58,290/- was misappropriated. Therefore, the accused persons had totally misappropriated to the tune of Rs.44,32,778/-.

¶35

In the first information, a specific allegation is made as against accused persons. Accused no.1 was working as branch manager of the finance company while accused no.2 was working as Assistant branch manager of the finance company in its branch office at Arasikere for the period from 14.09.2023 to 29.11.2024, during which the alleged fraud has taken place.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the anticipatory bail application of accused no.1 in Crl.P.No.209/2025 was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court on 05.02.2025 and the bail application of accused no. 3 was rejected by this court in Crl.P. No. 1861/2025 disposed of on 04.03.2025. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that even the prayer made by the

¶37