Bengaluru, September 1, 2023 – In a matter concerning alleged financial fraud within the agricultural academic sector, the LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70), Sri Balagopalakrishna, acting as c/c Judge, has granted anticipatory bail to Dattathreya H.N., aged 57. The petitioner was apprehending arrest in connection with the misappropriation of funds belonging to the University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK.
The bail order, issued in Crl. Misc. No. 8135/2023, directs the Yelahanka Police Station to release Dattathreya H.N. in the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 131/2023. The charges leveled in the case are for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background and Allegations of Misappropriation
The criminal case was registered by the Yelahanka police based on a complaint filed by Dr. H.C. Prakasha. The core allegation, as stated in the First Information Report (FIR), is the misappropriation of a substantial sum amounting to Rs. 42,48,952/- from the Agriculture University.
The FIR primarily focuses on the actions of one Vijaykumar M., who served as the Assistant Financial Control Officer in the Department of Directorate of Post Graduate Studies at the Agricultural University, GKVK, from June 24, 2019, until March 31, 2022. During his tenure, Vijaykumar M. was entrusted with crucial responsibilities including financial management and account maintenance. The prosecution alleged that it was during this period that he misappropriated the university’s funds.
The Petitioner’s Plea and Defense
Dattathreya H.N., the petitioner, sought protection from arrest, asserting his complete innocence and claiming he had been falsely implicated with mala fide intention.
A crucial point raised by the defense, represented by Sri H.R. Manjunatha, was the petitioner’s specific non-involvement in the initial complaint: “The name of the petitioner is not shown in the FIR. He is not involved in the alleged offence.”
The defense further submitted that the respondent police had issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C., calling upon him to appear for investigation, which fueled his reasonable apprehension of arrest. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of Girinagar, Bengaluru, hails from a respectable family, has no criminal record, and is ready to comply with all conditions, including furnishing surety and cooperating with the investigation. The court was informed that the petitioner is an employee working at the GKVK campus, underscoring his roots and stability in the area.
Prosecution Opposition
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the alleged offences were grave in nature and committed against an institution of public importance (the University). The prosecution expressed concern that the petitioner was absconding since the case registration and argued that if he were enlarged on bail, he might commit similar offences, and securing his presence for trial would become difficult.
Court’s Findings and Rationale
The court carefully considered the arguments and the materials placed on record, including the FIR and the petitioner’s specific defense.
In its assessment, the court noted that the petitioner was facing apprehension of arrest since the police had registered non-bailable offences against him. However, the court found several mitigating factors in favour of the petitioner:
- Nature of Offence: The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and they are triable by a learned Magistrate.
- Investigative Requirement: The court observed that the “Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the alleged offence because the role of the complainant [or the case against the petitioner] is depending on the documentary evidence.”
- Petitioner’s Status: Dattathreya H.N. is a resident within the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and is employed at GKVK, making the likelihood of his absconding low. He also expressed clear willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The court concluded that the presence of the petitioner could be secured by imposing suitable terms and conditions, thereby safeguarding the interests of the investigation without resorting to immediate detention. Stating that the petition deserved to be allowed, the court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
The petition was allowed, and Dattathreya H.N. was granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 131/2023, the Yelahanka police are directed to release him upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following five conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
- He shall not threaten the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in any other offence.
- The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
The ruling ensures that Dattathreya H.N. is protected from arrest, allowing him to participate in the investigation while maintaining his liberty, pending the full adjudication of the charges in the trial court.