Chandrakala R W/o Rajesh, & Anr. vs State by Basaveswaranagar Police Bengaluru Represented by the State Public Prosecutor

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 379, 506 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.246/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The averments in the complaint are, one Vinod who is the accused No.1 was working as Accountant in the company belonging to the complainant and he was instructed to manage the affairs of the company. During the said period he has misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.78,96,017/- and on enquiry, he had informed that the money was given to his relatives and other friends and also requested the complainant not to file any complaints and he will repay the same within a short period and also issued cheques in favour of the complainant. The said Vinod had not repaid the misappropriated amount and on his information and confession, the present petitioners were arrayed as accused No.4 and 5 in the present crime. Accordingly, case was registered for the alleged offences.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City Civil Court, rejecting the bail application of the petitioners.

Perusing the materials placed on record, it is seen that the present petitioners are not the employees of the complainant''s establishment. It is accused No.1 Vinod who was working as Accountant in the complainant''s company. On his statement that he has given some amount to his family members and friends, these petitioners are implicated. Even if it is assumed that accused No.1 has made such statement, the same is not binding on the petitioners unless it is supported by any other independent evidence placed by the prosecution.

The petitioners have contended in the petition that they are innocent and not committed the alleged offences and they have undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are all triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 379, 506 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.246/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.