Veershetty vs The State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The Bhalki Town Police Station, Bhalki, have registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No. 367/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 166(A), 166, 167, 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 477(A) of IPC and started the investigation.

The brief allegations made in the First Information Report are that, the Government has initiated the proceedings by referring a letter to Lokayukta for investigation and for report under Section 7(2A) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, in letter No. ID/95/2000-01 dated 31.05.2000. The Lokayukta has referred the said complaint or the report to their technical wing and after due investigation the technical wing has found out certain lapses and submitted the investigation report and also advised the Government to take appropriate action against the erred officers in this regard. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the accused persons by name Siddappa, M.S. Venkata Reddy, V.H. Agarkhed (retired) who were working as Executive Engineers and the present petitioner Veershetty working in the Accounts Branch in Bidar District pertaining to Karanja Project. They have misappropriated the amount in purchasing of the articles pertaining to the said Project. It is alleged that there was a huge misappropriation in this regard. The Lokayukta have reported that the amount which was misappropriated was by way of violating the rules and regulations and Transparency act, and misappropriated the Government amount by creating concocted and forged documents and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2,56,000,00/-. Therefore, it is advised that the Government should take appropriate action. On the basis of such report the present Executive Engineer by name Premsingh S/o: Bhikkusingh has lodged the FIR, on the basis of which the police have registered a case. The report of the Lokayukta has also been produced before the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was only working in the accounts branch and he never involved in committing any of the offences alleged and he is not the person who can approve, or pass any orders or issue any directions for purchase of any articles pertaining to the said project and he is not the member of the purchase committee which passes the orders, nor he has got any discretion either to purchase or reject the articles. Though the orders are passed by the official superiors and his duty is only to record the accounts as per the orders of the Executive Engineers. The Executive Engineers are the persons who issue the orders for purchase of articles, approve the bills and this petitioner is only duty bound to record those things in the accounts branch. Except the omnibus allegations there is no role exactly stated even in the Lokayukta report as to how this petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offences alleged along with the other accused persons that has to be trashed out during the course of the investigation or if any charge sheet is filed during the course of full dressed trial. Therefore, he contends that custodial investigation is not necessary in this case, as this petitioner has already retired from service since 10 years back and he is ready and willing to offer substantial surety for his appearance before the investigating officer and he is ready and willing to attend the police in investigating the matter. Therefore, he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader. He contends that, at this stage, the role of this petitioner cannot be bifurcated from the other accused persons. The officials who were involved in the commission of such offences have been taken note of by the Government and also the Lokayukta while submitting their report. Therefore, the custodial investigation is necessary so far as this petitioner is concerned. The argument of the learned High Court Government Pleader is not acceptable for the reasons that, as to why and in what manner the custodial investigation is required, is not brought out from the facts and circumstances of the case.

On perusal of the report of the Lokayukta, it is categorically observed that there should be a committee i.e. purchase committee which has to take up the matter and pass appropriate order before purchasing any articles so far that scheme is concerned. Further added to that, the Executive Engineers are the proper persons who can take appropriate decision and also pass orders with regard to the purchase of articles and also they are entitled to purchase the property and accounts have to be maintained by the petitioner and there is no specific role, at this stage, can be attributed. But on overall looking to the allegations of lapses on the part of the entire officials who were involved in the commission of the offences has to be trashed out during the course of the trial. Whether knowing fully well those bills raised by the officials or by the concerned persons are not properly done and those bills are based on any illegal activities, whether such offences also even visualized by this petitioner are things have to be investigated during the course of the trial. However, as this petitioner has already been retired from services since 10 years back, at this stage, the custodial investigation is, in my opinion, may not be necessary because he is neither the custodian of any documents nor he can tamper with the witnesses because the witnesses are almost the officials witnesses and sellers of the articles etc. Under the above said circumstances, by means of imposing stringent conditions, I am of the opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest or voluntarily surrendering before the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 367/2014 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 166(A), 166, 167, 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 477(A) of IPC, subject to following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the investigating officer within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the investigating officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation etc.

(iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in 15 days on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause."