Karnataka High Court
Suresh M C vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.769/2022
BETWEEN:
SURESH M.C.,
S/O LATE M.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY
HIREMAGALUR, R/AT NO.15
SRI MARUTHI NILAYA
HOUSING BOARD
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHAMARAJ M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TOWN POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.242/2021 REGISTERED BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409 AND 420 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.242/2021
of Chikkamagalur Town Police Station, Chikkamagalur District,
for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent/ State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that when the enquiry was conducted about misappropriation of
the amount in the Society for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-
15 and 2015-16 to 2018-19, an amount of Rs.43,88,175/-
during the tenure of this petitioner was misappropriated. Based
on the complaint, a case has been registered and the matter is
under investigation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the allegation pertains to the years 2012-13
to 2018-19 and there is no any explanation as to the delay in
lodging the complaint and an amount of around Rs.10 Lakhs is
adjusted out of his retiremental benefit and this petitioner is in
custody from 23.12.2021 and no need of custodial trial. Hence,
he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that, it is not in
dispute that an amount of around Rs.10 Lakhs is adjusted out of
his retiremental benefits; still he has to pay the amount of Rs.33
lakhs and odd. The total misappropriation of funds during his
tenure as CEO is to the extent of Rs.43,88,175/-. Being the CEO
of the Society, he committed the offence of misappropriation of
funds and it requires his custody for further investigation.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, particularly, from the period
2012-13 to 2018-19 i.e., during the tenure of this petitioner as
CEO an amount of Rs.43,88,175/- was misappropriated. The
same came to light only after conducting the audit. This
petitioner is also removed from the service for his misconduct.
When such being the factual aspects of the case and when the
matter is under investigation, unless the investigation has been
completed, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion to release
him on bail. The learned High Court Government Pleader also
would contend that it affects the society at large when the
misappropriation was done to the extent of Rs.43,88,175/-.
7. In this regard, this Court would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Bhiwandi
Wada Manor Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in (2021) 8 SCC 753,
wherein, the Apex Court held that, the Court has to take note of
the seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner,
particularly, when the fraud is committed and also
misappropriation of the huge fund when the officer is in-charge
of the affairs of the Society has indulged in committing the
offence of misappropriation, the discretion cannot be exercised.
Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion in
crime stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to
the petitioner to approach this Court after filing of the charge-
sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
