Karnataka High Court
Archana D/O. Yallappa Betageri vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100064 OF 2024 (439)
BETWEEN:
ARCHANA D/O. YALLAPPA BETAGERI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT MANAGER,
R/O. SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR,
HAVERI-581110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, HAVERI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
HAVERI.
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.
2. RITESH KUMAR S/O. RAM SHANKAR PRASAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. CHIEF MANAGER,
DEPUTY REGIONAL HEAD, REGIONAL OFFICE,
HUBBALLI.
Digitally
VIJAYALAXMI signed by
M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI
M BHAT
*(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT*)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J. M, ADDL AG ALONG WITH
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI T.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL
IN HAVERI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION CRIME NO.92/2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SNR. DN) AND
CJM COURT, HAVERI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
CRL.P No. 100064 of 2024
120B, 409, 420, 471, 477, 477(a), R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accused No.1 in Crime No.92/2023 registered
by Haveri CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 471,
477, 477(a) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is before this
Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.92/2023 was registered by
Haveri CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district against the
petitioner and two others for the aforesaid offences on the
basis of the complaint lodged by Raviraj S/o Narasappa,
the Branch Manger, Union Bank of India, Kurubgonda
Branch, Haveri district. In the complaint, it is averred that
the complainant had joined the bank at Kurubgonda
Branch as a branch head on 12.10.2023. The previous
manager had died on 03.01.2023.. Since there was lot of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
customer issues in the branch office of the Bank at
Kurubgonda, nobody was ready to take charge of the
branch and therefore, without any option, the petitioner
herein was working as branch head from 02.05.2023 till
the complainant joined on 12.10.2023. In the complaint,
it is also averred that on 26.10.2023, the transfer order
was issued against the petitioner and on the very same
day, she was relieved from the bank. However, on
30.10.2023 the security officer from the regional office
had submitted a report that on 27.10.2023, the petitioner
along with other accused persons had unathorised access
to the branch on the guise of handing over keys to the
complainant and it was also stated in the said report that
the accused persons had operated ATM machine, collected
some cheques, voucher papers and thereafter, had
entered the strong room of the bank and collected some
items and had left the bank with a plastic tray and bag.
4. It is averred in the complaint that there was a
cash shortage of 31,33,500/- which was noted on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
30.10.2023. It is further averred in the complaint that
there were complaints from the customers and as per the
report of the inspection officers from the regional office,
the gold ornaments pledged in the bank for obtaining gold
loan were also missing. In the complaint, it is averred
that the petitioner along with other accused persons had
caused a huge loss of nearly 1,62,76,712/- to the Bank.
5. During the course of investigation, the
petitioner was arrested on 08.11.2023. Bail application
filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in
Crl.Mis.No.868/2023 was rejected on 29.12.2023.
Therefore, she is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case after
she was transferred. He submits that accused nos.2 and 4
have been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court in
the present case and accused No.3 has been granted
anticipatory bail. The petitioner is a lady aged about 39
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
years, who is in custody for the last nearly three months.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, the learned additional Advocate
General appearing for respondent no.1 and learned senior
counsel appearing for the defacto complainant-respondent
No.2 have opposed the bail application. They submit that
there is recovery from accused no.1 and she has admitted
her guilt by depositing the amount drawn by her from ATM
machine on 27.10.2023. They submit that the learned
Sessions Judge without appreciating that the alleged
offences are punishable with life imprisonment, has
granted bail to the other accused persons and after the
same was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions
Judge, the bail application of the petitioner has been
rightly dismissed. They also submit that the investigation
in the case is under progress. Learned AGA has relied on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
(Crl.A. No.3840/2023) and Tarun Kumar Vs.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (SLP
(Crl.) No.9431/2023). Accordingly, they pray to dismiss
the petition.
8. The petitioner is a lady aged about 39 years
and she was working as a Assistant Manger in Union Bank
of India. As per the complaint averments, since there was
a lot of customer issues in Kurubgonda branch of Union
Bank of India, the officers of the bank were not ready to
take charge of the branch at Kurubgonda. It is under
these circumstances, the petitioner was asked to officiate
as a branch head at Kurubgonda branch for the period
from 02.05.2023 onwards till the complainant joined on
12.10.2023.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioner was transferred
from the said branch on 26.10.2023 and she was also
relived on the same day. The allegation against her is that
she had come to the branch office of the bank on
27.10.2023 along with accused nos.2 and 3 and had taken
away huge amount of cash and other valuable from the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
bank. Accused nos.2 to 4 are also employees of the bank.
They were working in the branch office of the bank in
various capacities. The allegation in the complaint is that
the petitioner along with other accused persons had
caused huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,26,712/-.
10. Accused Nos.2 and 4 have been granted regular
bail by the Sessions Court and accused no.3 has been
granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in this
case. Undisputedly, the said orders have not been
challenged either by the State or by the defacto
complainant. Petitioner is a lady who is in custody from
08.11.2023 till date. The major portion of the
investigation in the case is completed. The arguments put
forward by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent that the learned Sessions Judge, unmindful of
the fact that the alleged offences are punishable with life
imprisonment had granted regular bail and anticipatory
bail to the other accused, cannot be a ground to reject the
bail application of the petitioner when the said orders
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
granting regular bail and anticipatory bail to the other
accused has not been questioned by the respondents till
date.
11. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter
and also taking into consideration the first proviso to
Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the
petitioner's prayer for enlarging her on regular bail is
required to be answered affirmatively.
12. The judgments in case of Saumya Chaurasia
Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Tarun Kumar Vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement on
which reliance has been placed by the learned AGA cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the
present case, as the said judgments are rendered in cases
were offences, under the provisions of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, were invoked against the
accused. Section 45 of the said Act provides for certain
rigors for granting bail to the accused who are involved in
case for the offence punishable under the provisions of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
said Act. Therefore, the above referred judgments cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Under these circumstances, I am of the
opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant
of regular bail is required to be answered in the
affirmative. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be
enlarged on bail in Crime No.92/2023 registered by Haveri
CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri district for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 471, 477,
477(a) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court.
ii. The petitioner shall attend Trial Court regularly
on all dates of hearing unless his appearance is
exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2245
iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The petitioner shall not involve in similar
offences in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vmb
