Krishnamurthy B.M. vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner / accused No. 1 u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 409, 477(A) and 201 of IPC and registered in respondent police station Crime No. 346/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, complaint, FIR and all other materials produced along with the petition. Looking to the averments in the complaint it is stated that account holders of the Syndicate Bank gave cheque to account holders of other Banks and when presented for encashment the manager of the other bank enquired the present Syndicate Bank Manager as to whether sufficient funds are there or not, the petitioner was suppose to furnish the information within 12 hours and if no information is furnished the amount mentioned in the cheque will be credited to the account and the same would be treated as Debit Clearing Collection Account. It is also alleged that the petitioner herein when the information was sought from him deliberately in order to cheat he did not give any information and though there was no account in the bank made the cheque encashed and further got the cheque encashed even though there was no sufficient funds and even after the closer of the bank hours, the cheques were honoured. It is further alleged that petitioner and other staff of the Bank in collusion with each other misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs. 2,03,69,000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the alleged offence.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused No. 1 during the course of his arguments made the submission that if the allegations are true, that the amount pertaining to one particular customer of the Bank was transferred to the account of another customer then there would have been complaint from the customers against the Manager of the Bank. Learned counsel made the submission that no such complaint filed by any of the customers of the Bank. It is also his contention that there are serious allegations even against accused No. 2 who is the custodian of all the funds of the bank. Except the present petitioner all other accused persons are granted bail. He submits that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the prosecution material it clearly goes to show that the petitioner being the Manager of the said Bank without following the due procedure wrongly transferred that amounts from one account to another account and cleared the cheques even there are no account in respect of the some transactions and cleared the cheques even when there is no sufficient funds in the account. Hence he made submission that the material goes to show that there is conspiracy of Manager and other staffs of the Bank and public money has been looted. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has recovered 10 cheques from the house of the present petitioner and there is also another case registered against the present petitioner of the similar nature and hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, and all other materials produced along with the petition by the petitioner. On earlier occasion also petitioner had approached with court in Crl.P No. 7196/2013 and he has withdrawn the said petition to that effect the order is passed on 02.12.2013. Thereafter wards again he approached this court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of on 09.01.2014 in Crl.P No. 7256/2013. In the said order this court has observed at that stage investigation was still pending and petitioner''s interrogation by Investigation Officer is necessary in the case. Hence that petition was rejected for the grant of anticipatory bail. There afterwards, the present petitioner was arrested by the police and he was taken to the custody and he has been interrogated and as submitted now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter. It is his contention that he has not at all misappropriated the amounts of the said Bank. There is false implication of the petitioner in the said case and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this court. All other accused persons have been already granted with bail and the alleged offences are traible by Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable by death or imprisonment of life. Hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed, accused No. 1 to be released on bail in Crime No. 346/2013 of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 409, 477(A) and 201 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs Only) and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court..

Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.