Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 KABC010080882024 IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 30th day of March, 2024 PRESENT Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B, XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) and also holding concurrent charge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 Petitioner: Sri Prasad S aged about 30 years, s/o Srinivas S.N. r/at No. 24/1, 4th cross, Vinayaka nagar, Siddanahosahalli, Madanayakanahalli, Madavara, Bengaluru 562 123 (By Thribhuvan Chakravarthy and Associates ) ­V/S­ Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 Respondent : State of Karnataka by Ramamurthy nagar P.S, B`lore (Represented by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) citing a reasonable apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 386/2023, wherein the petitioner stands as accused of offences punishable u/sec. 408, 420 of Indian Panel Code.

2. The petitioner pleading false implication and absence

of primafacie material supporting the commission of offences necessitating punishable u/sec. 408, 420 of IPC, expressing genuine apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent police, sought for his release on pre­arrest bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed

objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on record indicating that the petitioner has allegedly committed Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 the offences in question, hence sought to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the argument an perused the petition

averments. The point that would arise for my determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to enlarge him on bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

5. My answer is in the affirmative for the following;

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1; The case of the prosecution is that on

31.7.2023 the Executive Legal of the complainant entity, namely Royaloak Incorporated Pvt. Ltd., lodged a complaint with the respondent police, alleging that the petitioner, in their capacity as an employee of the complainant, perpetrated fraudulent activities concerning invoices, travel conveyance, and other financial transactions at the complainant's head office situated in Banaswadi. These purported actions allegedly resulted in a financial loss amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs incurred Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 by the complainant. Furthermore, it is contended that an internal departmental inquiry conducted on the same date revealed that the petitioner had colluded with the Royaloak Finance team to fabricate fraudulent invoices, thereby orchestrating the transfer of funds to their personal account under the guise of payments to various vendors through the submission of falsified bills. Thereby, it is alleged that the petitioner had committed the aforesaid offence. On the basis of said complaint the FIR is registered for the aforesaid offence.

7. I have perused the complaint averments and

contents of the FIR. Admittedly the petitioner was the employee of the complainant and it is alleged that he was working in the complainant company since 10 years and during this period he had committed aforesaid mischief. However the complainant has not given particulars of the dates from which the alleged fraud was committed. The Police Inspector of Ramamurthynagar P.S. had issued a notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner to come and appear before the SHO for the purpose of investigation. The Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri. Ramappa @ Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2021 (0) Supreme (Kar) 251 has held as below:­ “22. Hence, a person gets apprehension of being arrested in two situations:­ firstly when a ‘Notice‘ is issued to him under Section 41A (1) of the Code and secondly, after complying the terms of ‘Notice‘ the police officer forms an opinion that such person ought to be arrested or in a situation, such person fails to comply the terms of ‘Notice‘ or is unwilling to ‘identify‘ himself.

23. In all the above three situations such person

can maintain an anticipatory bail application as Section 41A of the Code does not stipulate the specific condition of notice of appearance.

24. Section 41A of the Code operates in a situation

where there is no arrest and prescribes the course of option to be adopted by a police officer in case he decides not to arrest any person. Till the time any person is not arrested, he is entitled to maintain an application for Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 grant of anticipatory bail subject to, of course, the applicability of any other law to the contrary.” Therefore I am of the view that, issuance of a notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer indicates the existence of a potential risk of arrest. Given the circumstances wherein the FIR registered about non­bailable offences, albeit triable by the Court of Magistrate of First Class , based on documentary evidence, I opine that there exists no legal impediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. To address the prosecution's concerns regarding the potential flight risk, stringent conditions can be imposed as a measure to mitigate such apprehensions. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

8. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons

this court proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioner, in connection Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 with Cr. No. 386/2023 registered by the respondent police station for the offence punishable u/sec. 408, 420 of IPC, the respondent police hereby directed to release him on bail, on obtaining his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the police and trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.

2. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence.

4. The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation.

5. The petitioners shall appear before the I.O. within 15 days from the date of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 30h day of March, 2024)

(Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore. Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024 27.2.2024 Petitionr by RK respondent by PP for orders. Order pronounced in open court, vide separate order.

ORDER

(Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore. Crl.Misc.No.2876/2024