Karnataka High Court
Sri Arjun Prkash T S vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3944/2022
BETWEEN
SRI ARJUN PRAKASH T S
S/O SHIVUPRAKASH
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS
AKSHAYA, NO.226
HOYSALA CITY MAIN ROAD
HOUSING BOARD
HASSAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJU C N, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
HASSAN
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, 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 RESPECT OF CRIME NO.10/2022
REGISTERED BY THE HASSAN CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
471, 417, 409, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
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
this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his
arrest in respect of Crime No.10/2022 registered by the Hassan
CEN Crime Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable
under Sections 471, 417, 409, 420 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 is that this petitioner
was working as a bank Manager and between 16.06.2016 to
16.02.2018 that is within the span of eight months, he has
sanctioned the loan 101 cash credit loan for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each and thereby he had indulged in creation of
false documents and disbursing the amount and when the
vigilance team went and verified the same, they came to know
that no such shops were in existence and no such property was
also in existence and hence, he had committed an offence under
Section 409 to the tune of Rs.2,82,24,671/- along with other
accused persons and cheated the bank and also indulged in
creation of documents and based on those documents, the loans
were disbursed. Based on the complaint, the police have
registered the case against the petitioner for the aforesaid
offences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is working as bank Manager
under probation and the only allegation against him is that
during the period of eight months, the loan was disbursed based
on the documents and he has not indulged in such act of
creation of documents and disbursing the loan amount and he
also continued in the job after this allegation and he being an
employee of the bank, he will not flee from the justice and
hence, he may be enlarged on bail and prayed to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner
being an employee of the Karnataka Grameena Bank had
indulged in misappropriating the amount to the tune of
Rs.2,82,24,671/- along with other accused persons and also
indulged in creation of documents and disbursed the amount in
favour of the persons who are not having any shop or business
in the property and the matter requires to be probed. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for
the parties and also on perusal of the material available on
record it discloses that the petitioner has indulged in creation of
documents along with the middleman and disbursed the amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards the 101 cash credit loan within a
span of eight months and hence, he had committed fraud on the
public money around 3 crore. When such serious allegation is
made against this petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the
discretion in favour of the petitioner and the Court has to look
into the gravity of the alleged offences as held by the Apex Court
in the judgment of SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR
INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 8 SCC
753 regarding misappropriation of huge fund.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
