Karnataka High Court
Kiran Kumar A G vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4684/2022
BETWEEN:
KIRAN KUMAR A.G.
S/O. GANESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O. NO.17/7, 1ST MAIN
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH N. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HARISH T.S., ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJ GOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.131/2022 OF RAJAGOPAL
NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 403,
408, 420, 465, 470, 471, 468 R/W. 34 OF IPC, PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE 4TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying
to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail, in the event of his
arrest in respect of Crime No.131/2022 registered by Rajagopal
Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable
under Sections 403, 408, 420, 465, 470, 471 and 468 read with
Section 34 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 the complainant is a company i.e., Unity 3PL Services
Private Limited run engaging the services of 26 persons and this
petitioner is working as Godown Incharge and other accused
persons are Deputy Manager, Supervisor and Office Boy. When
they did the audit work, found the shortage of stock worth of
Rs.31,97,988/- and the same was brought to their notice.
Though they took 7 days time, they did not set right the same
and 77 receipts worth of Rs.15,93,086/- was missing and also
found 26 fake receipts. It is also stated that the accused No.2
has started his own company and thereafter, when they did the
audit work, again found shortage of stock worth of Rs.7,07,142/-
and also found duplicate receipts worth of Rs.2,68,026/-.
Hence, case has been registered and now the matter is under
investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
this petitioner was only working as Gowdown Incharge and there
was a misunderstanding between the owner as well as the
Supervisor and hence, this petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the case and he has not indulged in any such act causing loss
to the company. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that specific
allegation is made that this petitioner being the Godown
Incharge along with Deputy Manager and other employees
indulged in misappropriation and also committed offence of
criminal breach of trust and in total, stocks worth of
Rs.57,66,242/- were missing and the same has to be recovered
from the petitioner. Hence, there is a prima facie case against
the petitioner.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material on record, specific allegation is made
against the petitioner, who being the Godown Incharge that he
along with Deputy Manager, Supervisor and Office Boy indulged
in committing the offence of criminal breach of trust and stock
worth of Rs.57,66,242/- was missing. When such serious
allegation is made with regard to shortage of stock and though
they took time to set right the same and could not do the same,
when such being the material on record and recovery has to be
made at the instance of this petitioner with regard to the stock,
it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the
petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
7. The Apex Court also, in the judgment in the case of
SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
ANOTHER reported in (2021) 8 SCC 753, while invoking
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. held that the Court has to consider the
nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his
influencing the course of investigation or tampering with
evidence, likelihood of fleeing justice. When there is a huge
misappropriation of funds and committed the offence of criminal
breach of trust, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in
favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
