Smt. Kavitha W/O. Madhusdanaraju ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2336 Kant

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JUNE 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.101074/2021

   BETWEEN:

   SMT. KAVITHA W/ O. MADHUSDANARAJU V
   AGE. 25 YEARS , OCC. JUNI OR ENGIN EER
   PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING
   SUB-DIVISION, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPA L
   NOW R/O. PAN CHA YATHRAJ ENGINEERING
   SUB-DIVISION, TQ: KUDLIGI
   DIST: BALLARI -583135.
                                        ...PETITIONER
   (BY SRI.J BASAVA RAJ, ADV OCATE)

   AND

   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   (THROUGH CYBER, ECONOMIC
   AND NARCOTIC CRIME P.S K OPPAL)
   REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA
   BENCH AT DHARW AD-580011
                                       ... RES PONDENT
   (BY SRI.R.RAVIND RA NAIK, HCGP)

         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
   CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, GRAN T
   ANTICIPATORY BA IL AND DIRECT THE RES PONDENT
   POLI CE TO ENLA RGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUS ED NO.3
   ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CRIME
   NO.02/ 2021    REGISTERED      CYBER,    ECONOMIC
   NARCOTIC CRIME POLI CE STATION, KOPPA L DIST.
   REGISTERED F OR THE OFFEN CES U/ S 409, 420 OF I PC
   IN SO FA R AS THE PETITION ER IS CONCERNED ON LY.
                            2




    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON            FOR
ORDERS  THIS  DAY,  THE   COURT MADE            THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused No.3

under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime

No.2/2021 of Cyber, Economic and Narcotic

Crime Police Station, Koppal, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420

of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that

the petitioner-accused No.3 was working as

Junior Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering

Department Sub-Division, Koppal. That one Sri

K.Thimmappa, Executive Officer, Taluka

Panchayat Kushtagi, lodged a written complaint

dated 20.01.2021 before the CEN, Police

Station Koppal, alleging that the officials of the

Rural Drinking Water and Sanitization

Department, Kushtagi, have shown that an

amount of Rs.370.70 Lakhs was spent for

executing 198 Check-Dam works during the

year 2019-20, under the MNRG Scheme, but

according to DQM report only about Rs.100.20

Lakhs is spent and the remaining amount of

Rs.270.49 Lakhs is misappropriated by the

officials. It is further submitted in the

complaint that the petitioner accused No.3 who

was working as Junior Engineer has disbursed

an amount of Rs.41,62,000/- but the DQM

report shows that work for Rs.9,39,000/- has

done and the remaining amount of

Rs.32,23,000/- is misappropriated by the

petitioner accused No.3. On the basis of the

complaint, a case came to be registered in

Crime No.2/2021 of CEN, P.S. Koppal for the

offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420

of IPC. The petitioner apprehending her arrest

had filed Crl.Misc.No.40/2021 seeking

anticipatory bail and the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Koppal, has rejected the said

petition by order dated 23.04.2021. Therefore,

the petitioner is before this Court seeking

anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. It is the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that

the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer

and her work is that after completion of

construction work, she has to measure and

enter the measurements in the measurement

book and the amount will be directly credited

to the account of workers and she has no role

in any monetary transactions. It is the accused

No.6, who is working as Junior Executive

Engineer, Rural Drinking Water and

Sanitization Department, Sub-Division,

Kushtagi, is the person assigned for making

payment of wages to the workers. It is his

further submission that on looking to the entire

averments in the complaint, the offence under

Section 420 of IPC is not attracted. The

petitioner is innocent and she has not

committed any offence as alleged and the

petitioner is ready to co-operate with the

Investigating Officer in the investigation. With

this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that the

petitioner has misappropriated the funds. The

investigation is still in progress and the

petitioner is required for investigation, if the

petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she will

not be available for the investigation. With

this, he prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, this Court has gone through the

records.

7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC

312, the Hon'ble Apex Court after analyzing

various previous judgment and guidelines, has

enumerated the following factors and

parameters that can be taken into

consideration by Courts while dealing with the

anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusatio n and the e xact ro le of the accused must be properly comprehended be fore arrest is made;

(ii) The antecede nts of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previo usly unde rgone impriso nme nt on convictio n by a Court in respect o f any co gnizable o ffe nce;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's like lihood to repeat similar or o ther offence s;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the o bject of inj uring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or he r;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a ve ry large number o f people;

(vii) The Courts must evaluate the e ntire available mate rial against the accused very carefully. T he Court must also clearly co mprehend the exact ro le o f the accused in the case. The cases in which the accuse d is implicate d with the he lp of Sectio ns 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860, the Court should consider with even greater care and cautio n because o ver- implication in the cases is a matte r of co mmon kno wledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant o f anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck be tween two factors, name ly, no prejudice should be caused to the free , fair and full investigation, and there should be preve ntio n of harassment, humiliation and unjustified de tentio n of the accuse d;

(ix) The Court to conside r reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension o f threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivo lity in prosecutio n should always be conside red and it is only the e le me nt of genuineness that shall have to be conside red in the matter o f grant o f bail, and in the e vent of there be ing some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecutio n, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

8. The petitioner is working as Junior

Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering

Department, Sub-Division, Koppal. It is the

submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the duty assigned to petitioner

is that after the completion of construction she

has to take measurement and enter the

measurements in the measurement book and

thereafter the accused No.6 will directly credit

the amount of wages to the workers to their

account. Whether the petitioner has committed

any misappropriation as alleged can only be

ascertained after the completion of

investigation and filing of final report. The

amount alleged to be misappropriated by this

petitioner accused No.3 is Rs.32,23,000/-. As

the petitioner is ready and co-operate with the

Investigating Officer in the investigation, she

can be granted with anticipatory bail with

stringent conditions. The petitioner is now

transferred to Kudligi and therefore, there is

no question of any tampering of prosecution

witnesses.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain

terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Criminal petition filed under Section 438

of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest,

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in

connection with Crime No.2/2021 of Cyber,

Economic and Narcotic Crime Police Station,

Koppal with the following conditions:

i. The petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required.

iv. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

v. The petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.

vi. The petitioner shall mark her presence before the Police station concerned on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. for a period of six months from the date of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RM