Sri P Harish vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 463, 465, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC

registered in respondent police station Crime No.40/2016.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, petitioner is working as senior Manager (Inspection and Audit Division), Corporation Bank, Head

Office, Pandeswar, Mangaluru. Earlier, the petitioner had worked as senior manager, Corporation Bank, Tiptur Branch from 10.10.2014 to

30.6.2016. Petitioner joined the services of the Corporation Bank on 20.08.1980 and has completed more than 37 years of service. Petitioner has

now realized that a complaint is filed against him by one Sri.C.L.Kodandaramu on 26.3.2016 before the police. As per the complaint, the

complainant''s father had applied for loan to purchase machineries for handloom. The loan was duly sanctioned and was also credited to his

father''s account. Subsequently, amount was transferred to the account of Thirumala Enterprises which is a proprietary concern owned by one

Sri.Jeevan. It is further alleged that the machineries were not at all released or handed over to the borrower and therefore, the borrower is put to

loss and the petitioner herein along with few others have misappropriated the loan amount. As per the complaint averments, the amount which was

credited to the account was subsequently given to one Santosh Kumar who is said to be the agent to get the loan sanctioned and released. On the

basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the above said offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the complaint allegations, absolutely there is no

case as against the present petitioner, because when the loan of Rs.6 lakhs was sanctioned to the father of the complainant, it was credited to his

account, which is also admitted in the complaint and about the subsequent development the petitioner is not at all concerned. Hence, learned

counsel submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, so also, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during

investigation will not make out a prima facie case about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. He submitted that two

accused persons i.e., L.Siddaiah and H.R.Kantharaju have been already considered for bail by the order of this Court. In this regard, he has

produced the copy of the bail order dated 27.4.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.2915/2016. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable

conditions, petitioner-accused No.3 may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there is a misappropriation of the bank

funds by the petitioner along with other accused persons. Since petitioner is working as Branch Manager, it was his responsibility to ensure all

fairness in the transaction. There is a material to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Hence, it is

submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Looking to the complaint averments, the father of the complainant applied for loan to purchase machineries for handloom and accordingly, the

loan was sanctioned. Thereafter, the proceeds of the loan were credited to the account of the father of the complainant. On page No.2 of the

complaint complainant himself has mentioned that one month after they submitted the documents, loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs was sanctioned in the

name of his father and total amount of Rs.7,97,500/- was credited to the account of his father, out of which, Rs.2,02,000/- was taken back as

deposit money and remaining amount of Rs.6 lakhs was transferred to the account of one Jeevan, the proprietor of Thirumala Enterprise.

Therefore, the materials shows that after the amount was credited to the account of the father of the complainant, subsequently, it was transferred

to the account of One Jeevan who is the owner of Thirumala Enterprises for the purpose of supply of machineries. Therefore, if the machineries are

not supplied to the complainant M/s Thirumala Enterprises and its owner or the proprietor is responsible for the non-supply of machinery because

the amount is already credited to the account of one Jeevan.

The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and there is a false implication. He has

undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 409, 463, 465, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.40/2016, subject

to the following conditions:

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

authority.

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

iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further

investigation.

iv. Petitioner 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.