Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.2929/2021 of Kolar CEN Crime Police Station, Kolar, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 420 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working in the agency “Secure Value India Limited” for the purpose of filling the ATMs pertaining to Axis Bank, SBI Bank, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, IDBI Bank, IDBI Bank and UBI Bank and they used to fill the form belonging to the Company and they were filling the ATMs with security and periodically audit was also conducted and there were no loopholes earlier. In respect of route No.2, there were 10 ATMs, in respect of route No.3, 11 ATMs and route No.5, 18 ATMS were there and from 19.09.2021 in respect of route Nos.2, 3 and 5, C.Ws.4, 5 and 6 have conducted the audit and in respect of route No.2, found that Rs.29,53,600/- was not filled, in respect of route No.3, Rs.1,22,36,100/-, in respect of route No.5, Rs.1,64,06,800/-, in all Rs.3,15,96,500/- was not filled to the ATMs and hence they have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and fraud.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner used to only put the indent and draw the money and hand over the amount to accused Nos.2 to 4 and it was the duty of accused Nos.2 to 4 to fill the ATMs and this petitioner has not indulged in any act of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. He is in custody from 21.09.2021 and no need of further custodial trial and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that total amount of misappropriation is to the tune of Rs.3,15,96,500/-and the same is public money and all of them joined together and not filled the ATM and committed the heinous offence and there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner even though an amount of Rs.3,15,96,500/- was misappropriated. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for bail.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the fact that this petitioner is entrusted with the work of filling of the amount to ATMs and specific allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 4 have joined together and shared common intention and conspired with each other and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and fraud. The material collected by the prosecution is also misappropriation of amount of Rs.3,15,96,500/- and having considered the factual aspects and no recovery at the instance of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner used to draw the money and hand over the same to accused Nos.2 to 4 and in order to substantiate the contention that he had handed over the amount to accused Nos.2 to 4, no material is placed before the Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is having medical ailments and the Trial Court has already permitted to take food from the residence and on the health ground, he may be enlarged on bail. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered for the reason that serious allegation of misappropriation of Rs.3,15,96,500/- is made and if medical assistance is required, he can make a request with the jail authority for providing medical assistance, whenever he is in need of medical assistance.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected. The jail authority is directed to provide the medial treatment to the petitioner, if he is in need of the same.