Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10496 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5529/2022

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
24TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS AGARA,
HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102                           ... PETITIONER

       (BY SRI HONNAPPA S., ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.])

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOTHANUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.                      ... RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.35/2022 OF KOTHANUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408,
409,   420,   468,   470,  471,  474,   415, 416,  425,
463, 464 R/W 34 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 in Crime No.35/2022 of

Kothanur Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence

punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 474,

415, 416, 425, 463 and 464 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel 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 accused No.1 was working as Bank Manager at Dodda Gubbi

and he used to contact customers and earlier, he earned good

name and later on, accused No.1 joined hands with accused

Nos.2 and 3 and indulged in cricket betting and they were

betting for Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- at the first instance and

thereafter, betting for Rs.2 to 3 lakhs and when they were not

having money, used the money of the bank. The allegation

against this petitioner is that amount of Rs.2 Crores was got

transferred to his account other than the amount which had

been transferred to other accused. Hence, the police have

invoked the offence under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 470,

471, 474, 415, 416, 425, 463 and 464 of IPC and investigated

the matter and the Bank Manager is also in custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.2 and

similar allegation is made against accused No.2. Hence, this

petitioner is also entitled for bail. The counsel also would submit

that investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed and

no need of further custodial trial and hence, he may be enlarged

on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent-State would submit that the allegation

against accused No.2 is that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was

transferred to his account and allegation is also that through his

account, the amount was transferred. Hence, it is a case of

committing fraud and criminal breach of trust and using the

public money is an offence against the society at large.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation

against this petitioner is that, he indulged in committing the

offence of fraud and criminal breach of trust joining hands with

accused No.1. The case of the prosecution is also that, the Bank

Manager had transferred the amount more than Rs.2 Crors and

mere filing of charge sheet is not a ground and grant of bail to

other accused persons is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner

on the ground of parity and the Court has to take note of the

role of each of the accused.

7. The Apex Court also in the judgment reported in

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI

MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 (6) SCC

230 has held that, while granting bail on the ground of parity

with co-accused, the Court has to take note of the manner in

which the same has to be determined. While applying principle

of parity, Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious

manner and has to consider totality of circumstances before

granting bail on the ground of parity. While granting bail, the

Court must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon

carried by accused. Merely observing that another accused who

was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient

to determine whether bail can be granted on basis of parity. In

deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position

in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance. It

is also held that in the event parity is claimed, in such case, it is

for that Court to determine whether the case for grant of bail on

the ground of parity is made out and also held that seriousness

and gravity of the offence also to be taken note while exercising

the discretion.

8. Having considered the principles laid down in the

judgment (supra), the question of parity does not arise. The

allegation against accused No.2, who is already enlarged on bail

is different from the case of the petitioner. The accused No.1

has transferred the amount of Rs.2 Crores and the Court has to

take note of role of each of the accused. In the case on hand,

the petitioner, who being the manager of the bank

misappropriated the public money to the tune of Rs.2 Crores.

The other contention that already investigation is completed and

charge-sheet is filed is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on

bail, when huge public money is involved in the matter. Hence, it

is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST