Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2025 registered by respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 of IPC, pending before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC, Vijayapura, subject to conditions: (i) personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the respondent police; (ii) co-operation with investigation as and when required; (iii) not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses; (iv) appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned as accused No.3, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (old) / Section 482 BNSS in Crime No.1/2025 of Vijayapura CEN Crime Police Station for offences under Sections 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 IPC.

Court's answer

On reading of the complaint, the work of depositing the amount to the bank was entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2, who are stated to have misappropriated it; the only allegation made out against the petitioner is that he, being an accountant, was aware of the non-depositing of the amount to the bank and did not disclose that fact to the Management.

Ratio / Principle

All the offences made out against the petitioner are punishable neither with death nor imprisonment for life, and the petitioner is aged about 70 years and suffering from old-age ailments.

Key takeaways

It is therefore appropriate to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for; the petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2025, subject to the stated conditions.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted (S.438 Cr.P.C. old / S.482 BNSS) — Accused No.3, the accountant of the complainant's institute (aged 69 years per cause title, stated as about 70 years with old-age ailments in submissions), sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.1/2025 of Vijayapura CEN Crime Police Station for offences under Sections 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 IPC, arising from an alleged scam involving misappropriation of Rs.2,66,24,717/-. The Court found on reading of the complaint that the work of depositing the amount in the bank had been entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2, who were stated to have misappropriated it, and that the only allegation against the petitioner was that, being the accountant, he was aware of the non-deposit and did not disclose it to the Management; further, the offences against him were punishable neither with death nor imprisonment for life. The petition was accordingly allowed and the petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject to conditions of co-operating with investigation, refraining from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, and appearing before the Trial Court on all hearing dates. (By Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Rachaiah, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, 17 March 2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200298 OF 2025

(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MAHANTESH

S/O REVANASIDDAPPA MAHAJANSHETTI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT, R/O. BHAVANI NAGAR, BEHIND JYOTI FACTORY, INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANJAY KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI CEN CRIME PS VIJAYAPUR, REP BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585103.

BASAYYA HIREMATH S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTY, R/O. SHRI SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE PREMISES, VIJAYAPUR586102.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ASSP AND SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C (OLD) U/SEC 482 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO 1) ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) IN CRIME NO.1/2025 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT / VIJAYAPURA CEN CRIME P.S VIJAYAPURA

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 OF IPC IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST AND DIRECT THE VIJAYAPURA POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO. 1/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC VIJAYAPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2025 of respondent - Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case:

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant made certain allegations against the petitioner that, the petitioner was working as accountant in the institute of the complainant. The work of depositing the amount was entrusted to one Sri.Malleshi Basavaraj Karadi and Sri.Shivakumar Lingaiah to the bank.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

It is further stated that the said persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,66,24,717/- and the allegations made against this petitioner is that, he supported them in not keeping proper account for the said amount. Therefore, he has also been arraigned as one of the accused in the said scam. Hence, a complaint came to be filed before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.1/2025 for the offences stated supra.

Heard Sri.Sanjay Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Siddaling P.Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aged about 70 years. He was working as accountant. However, the work of depositing the amount to the bank was entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though the complainant has made such allegations against the petitioner that he has supported accused Nos.1 and 2, the said matter is required to be considered at the time of trial.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

It is further submitted that as the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that both accused Nos.1 and 2 have misappropriated the amount stated supra, the allegations made against this petitioner, prima facie would not constitute the offences. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that huge amount is involved in the scam. All the accused have in furtherance of common intention committed misappropriation which belongs to the institute of the complainant. The custodial interrogation is very much essential in such scam. In case, if the anticipatory bail is granted, he may not co-operate with the investigation. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, on reading of the complaint, it emerges that the work of depositing the amount to the bank was entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2. They stated to have misappropriated the amount stated supra. The only allegation made out against this petitioner is that, he being an accountant was aware about non depositing the amount to the bank, however, he did not disclose the said fact to the Management. All the offences made out against this petitioner is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. The petitioner being aged about 70 years and stated to be suffering from his old age ailments. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail as prayed for.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2025 registered by respondent police for the offences punishable under 408, 418,

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1707 CRL.P No. 200298 of 2025

420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473 of IPC, pending before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC, Vijayapura, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the respondent police.

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation as and when it is required.

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

UN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:PK