1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626 OF 2014 BETWEEN: G.Suresh, S/o. Ganeshan, No.93, Brahmin Street, Near Sai Baba Temple, Hosakote, Sulibele, Bangalore Rural, Karnataka-562 129.... PETITIONER/S [By Sri. Udaya Kumar G., Adv.] AND: State of Karnataka, Rep. by Hebbagodi Police Station, Bangalore-560 102.... RESPONDENT/S [By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP] *** This Crl.P. is filed u/section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and direct the respondent police to release the petitioner in the event of arrest on bail in Crime No.687/2014, Hebbagodi Police, Bangalore for the alleged offences u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC.,
2 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] & JMFC at Anekal. This Crl.P. coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail apprehending his arrest in Crime No.687/14 of Hebbagodi Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. The facts reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Marketing Executive and was entrusted with the responsibility to supply goods and recover the money. About 10-15 days earlier to the complaint, the stock accounts were verified and it was found that there was misappropriation of 100 tons of cement, 50 tons of CGBS and 2000 liters of diesel. Alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the said goods and said to have caused loss to the complainant. A complaint
3 on the aforesaid facts came to be registered and apprehending his arrest in the crime the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. parties. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a Marketing Executive and was not in-charge of either the cement or diesel and therefore, he submits that there is no question of any misappropriation. He submits that the petitioner would co-operate with the investigation and his presence is not necessary for any purpose and in case if the petitioner is arrested, he will be put to irreparable hardship. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected the application and submits that in the course of the investigation the statement of the
4 General Manager, Accounts have been recorded and that the petitioner was in-charge of cement, diesel, etc., and on perusal of the accounts of the aforesaid misappropriation revealed. He submits that prima facie there is a material against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 6. The petitioner has not appeared in the company of the complainant since from the year 2013. It is stated that he is in the custody of a car, a two wheeler and a mobile phone of the aforesaid company of the plaintiff and till today, it was not entrusted to them. That apart, the Investigating Officer has seized the accounts relating to the stock and as per the said account and the stock register maintained, there appears to be prima facie misappropriation of the cement, diesel, etc. It is also stated that he was incharge of the stock of all the aforesaid goods. Though the complaint came to be filed on 06.11.2014, the petitioner neither has attended
5 the office nor has offered any resignation and the perusal of the material placed on record reveals some material against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 7. The relief of anticipatory bail has to be granted only to protect the innocents who are falsely implicated. The aforesaid material reveals that there is prima facie material for the aforesaid offence. The presence of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of interrogation, recovery, etc. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief and the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court or the Investigating Officer forthwith. Ksm* Sd/- JUDGE.