Hemappa and Others vs State of Karnataka

G. Narendra, J.—The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haven, in Crl. Mis. No. 105/2015 dated 20/3/2015.

The Commissioner of CMC, Haven, lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others and respondent police registered the same as Crime No. 44/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 471 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The complaint in brief is stated that the work of digging and installing the borewell was awarded to a Contractor and was to be supervised by the first accused, who is an Engineer. The petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 to 5 were entrusted with the work of verifying and reporting the execution of the work in terms of the contract awarded.

It is the case of the complainant that as per the terms of the contract, the Contractor was required to fix 50MM G.I. pipe to a length of 525mtrs. and 20 MM G.I. pipe measuring 60 meters. Contrary to the contract the Contractor has fixed PVC pipes instead of G.I. pipes and that too to a length of 165 mtrs. only. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 who are petitioners before the Court instead of stating the exact nature of the work exhibited by the Contractor have falsely stated that the Contractor has executed the work as per the terms of the contract and thereby have induced the complainant to release the payments to the Contractor. It is the further case that, subsequently, upon the verification by the Officers of the department, the fraud played by the Contractor and accused came to light. Hence, the complaint.

Heard Sri. S.N. Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K.S. Patil, for the respondent.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are all law abiding citizens withstanding in the society and that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are lecturers in a reputed institution and the 4th petitioner is the Principal of the institution. He would plead that they are third party to the transaction between the City Municipal Council, Haven, and the Contractor. He would also submit that they are laymen without adequate knowledge to authenticate the work executed by the Contractor and that they have simply followed the directions of the engineer of the department, who is the first accused herein. The petitioner counsel would also submit that the petitioners in order to demonstrate their bonafides are willing to deposit the sum equivalent to the loss suffered by the CMC, as it was never their intention to cause loss to the complainant. The petitioners'' counsel would also submit that none of them have previous antecedents and if they are arrested and detained in custody, it would seriously prejudice their standing in society and also amongst the faculty and would virtually destroy their career.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners, who claim to be the responsible persons ought not to have endorsed the fraud played by the Contractor. He would further submits that the report is pursuant to extraneous consideration which respondent police would be able to demonstrate if they secure the custody of the accused. He would further submit that the report is a result of corruption and corruption has become the bane of the society and this Court should not exercise its discretion and jurisdiction to enlarge him on bail.

Having heard the counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the submission by the petitioners'' counsel about the petitioners being teachers, requires to be seriously considered in its consideration of the prayer. If the petitioners are suddenly detained, it would not only effect their standing as respectable persons, but, would also become a hindrance to the normal functioning of the institution and that too with exams approaching their services are really required to educate the students. The submission that the petitioners to demonstrate the bonafides are prepared to deposit the sum equivalent to the loss suffered by the CMC also merits consideration. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents nor have suffered any conviction.

In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police. Accordingly, the above petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of petitioners in Crime No. 44/15, the respondent police shall enlarge the petitioners on bail subject to the following conditions:-

"i) The order of anticipatory bail shall become operational on the petitioners'' depositing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the complainant-City Municipal Council, Haven. The said sum shall be retained by the complainant and if the petitioners ultimately succeed or if the petitioners are honorably acquitted by the Court, they shall be entitled to refund of said sum.

ii) The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Authorities.

iii) The petitioners shall visit the respondent police station on every Monday at 5.00 pm.

iv) The petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum."

It is clarified that the deposit by the petitioners is voluntary and only as a measure to demonstrate the bonafides and innocence. Neither the trial Court nor the Investigating Authority shall be influenced by any observation in this order.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the above terms.