B.Siddappa Son of Basappa and anr. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[k.n.keshavanarayana, j.] this criminal petition is filed under section 438 cr.p.c praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in crime no. 17/2012 of jayanagar police station, shimoga, for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 409 read with section 34 of ipc.1. in this petition filed under section 438 cr.p.c, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 who have been arrayed as accused nos.1 and 2 in crime no. 17/12 of jayanagar police station in shimoga registered for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 409 ipc read with 34 ipc have sought for relief of anticipatory bail.2. the first petitioner has been working as ceo of taluk panehavath, shimoga while the second petitioner is the district programme officer and child development project officer, shimoga coming under the administration of taluk panchayath, shimoga. one a.n.pranesh working as assistant accounts officer, taluk panchayath, shimoga lodged a report on 21.2.2012 alleging misuse of his official seal by these two petitioners and illegally drawing the amounts from the treasury and misappropriating the same. on the basis of the said report, the aforesaid cases came to be registered and investigation was taken up, on coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioners approached the learned sessions judge. shimoga seeking relief of anticipatory bail. however, the said petition came to be rejected. therefore, the petitioners are before this court.3. the petition is opposed by the respondent - state.4. i have heard both sides. perused the records made available.5. as noticed supra, the petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the case registered bv the respondent - police for the aforesaid non-bailable offences. therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that they are likely to be arrested is well founded.6. the complainant in this case is a subordinate of the first petitioner. the allegation made by him in the complaint is that his official seal has been misused by dawn for payment in the first petitioner on the bills drawn for payment in favour of certain beneficiaries and the monies so drawn have been received and misappropriated perusal of the records produced indicate that during investigation, the investigating officer had sought certain clarifications from the ceo of jilla panehayaih. shimoga and in reply, the ceo has informed the investigating officer that the ceo of the taluk panehayath namely the first petitioner is the authorised signatory on behalf of the taluk panehayath and he is competent to sign all the bills and cheques and there was no need for affixing the seal of the accounts officer on the bills. along with the said reply, the said reply, the ceo of jilla panchayath also appears to have sent copies of the documents showing that the cheques on the basis of the bills submitted were drawn in favour of beneficiaries namely manila supplementary nutrition and production center, gajanur and those cheques have been sent to the said beneficiary who in turn has issued valid receipts and the amount covered under the cheques have been credited to the account of the beneficiaries. having regard to the materials available on record at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have misappropriated public money nor have misused the official seal of the complainant. therefore, the petitioners are entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.8. accordingly, the petition is allowed. the respondent - jayanagara police, shimoga are hereby directed to release the petitioners herein on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with in crime no. 17/12 of the said police station, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of rs.25,000/-with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and also subject to further conditions that,i) upon such arrest and release, the petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when so required and co-operate in the investigation of the case including interrogation;ii) the petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.