Mr. Muniraja M vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7614 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3111/2022

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHWETHA O M
W/O MUDALAGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.200/5, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560 073

AND ALSO NATIVE PLACE AT
OBALAPURA VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-563 116.                      ... PETITIONER

          (BY SRI K.N.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001.                        ... RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
                                 2



      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.77/2022 OF
YESHWANTHAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss.380, 406,420,409 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
IV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.

     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.1 on bail in the event of her

arrest in Crime No.77/2022 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station,

Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 380,

406, 409 and 420 read with 34 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 the accused No.5, who was the auditor of the Manappuram

Finance Company and the accused No.2, who was the Assistant

Head along with other employees of the said Finance Company

Limited from 31.01.2022 to 21.02.2022 have opened 18

accounts in different names and they have misappropriated the

amount to the tune of Rs.1,07,04,810/- of pledged gold

ornaments. In respect of the customer, who pledged 685 grams

of gold in the company, lesser amount was shown and false

entries are made in the system with an intention to commit loss

to the company and the auditor also not audited the same

properly and earlier, he was also working as Assistant Branch

Head and there is a link between these two petitioners as well as

the other employees and in total, the company has suffered loss

to the tune of Rs.2,07,87,504/-.

4. The allegation made in the complaint is that this

petitioner being the Branch Head had indulged in

misappropriating the amount of the Finance Company and she

has not indulged in any such acts. Hence, she may be enlarged

on bail. She is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer

for investigation in the matter.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that accused No.2 has been granted bail by this

Court, who is working as auditor. Hence, the petitioner is also

entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that the specific allegations

are made against this petitioner in the complaint is that she

being a Branch Head had indulged in mis-appropriation of the

amount in total to the tune of Rs.2,07,87,504/-, was the loss

caused by this petitioner and other accused persons. Learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State also

would submit that the bail granted by this Court in respect of

one Shankar, who was working as auditor and an allegation is

that he has not properly audited and not indulged in any mis-

appropriation.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly, the complainant

is also one of the accused in connected Crime No.76/2022,

wherein, an allegation is also made against the complainant and

this complainant being the official of the Company had lodged a

complaint on 05.03.2022 making the allegation against this

petitioner. Crime No.76/2022 and Crime No.77/2022, are

registered with regard to mis-appropriation of fund of the

Company and fictitious accounts are opened and disbursed the

amount.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly, the allegation

made in the complaint, the alleged offences are mis-

appropriation to the tune of more than two Crores, details of the

pledged value, loss of weight, loss of amount and the customers

name also given in detail in the company and this is a huge mis-

appropriation of the fund of the Company in which this petitioner

is also working as Branch Head.

9. When such serious allegation is made, 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

categorically held that, when the huge amount of

misappropriation was done, the Court has to take note of the

nature of the offence, involvement of the accused and role of the

accused in disbursing the amount and mis appropriation of the

amount. When the gravity of the offence is serious in nature

and huge mis appropriation was done in colluding with other

officials of the Company, it is not a fit case to exercise the

discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner

on bail.

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

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*