KABC010078502024 IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/cLXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,(CCH-67) Bengaluru. Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024 Crl.Misc.No. 2808 of 2024 PETITIONER/S:- Pitabasha Acharya, S/o Direndra KR Acharya, Aged about 52 years, Working as Manager, Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagar, No.1910, SO Bengaluru, PB72, 50 feet Main Road, Sunkenahalli Gavipuram, Bengaluru 560 019. (By Sri.G.Hanumanthareddy., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT/S:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024 ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.455/2024 registered by the respondent CEN Crime police for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, of IPC and 66(C) 66(D) of IT Act.

2. Brief facts of the case.-

The complainant is a private limited running in the name M/s Creative Diesel Services Pvt.Limited had opened an OD account bearing No.125004045742 with Canara Bank, Hanumantha Nagar Branch and is in operation since several years. On 2.03.2024 around 2:54 pm the complainant received a call from number 935487918 claiming to be Sri.Raghavendra Prasad Pvt. ltd and told that he has an urgent RTGS transaction which will be initiated through mail and cheque will be produced in hard copy, later in the evening the complainant having received call from the said number he has saved the name as Raghavendra Prasad.K. seeing in the true caller App and the said person called around 12 times to the complainant starting from 2:54 p.m. and subsequently sent mail to branch mail ID from mail ID creativedieselservicespvtltd@gmail.com at 4:04 pm. On continues calls, enormous pressure from a regular customer and under the good faith believing that the party is genuine and considering the copy of the cheque with signature of all three signatories sent via mail requesting for the transaction mentioned thereunder is authentic, the complainant authorised the said request for RTGS transaction with a good faith and regular/usual course of business with no malafide intentions. The complainant on subsequent verification found that the letter head of the company submitted to the bank is fake and mobile No.935478918 3 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024 through which the petitioner received the call does ot belong or is used by the either of the Directors nor the employees of the company. the signature and seal used in the letter head is fake, the cheque leaf given by the complainant to a third party was edited forwarded to the bank through Email. The complainant had never requested through written letter and issued the said cheque for transfer of amount through RTGS. It is also alleged that due to the act of the Manager of the Canara Bank, Hanumantha Nagar Branch, the petitioner herein such that he authorised and transferred the amount without verification or intimating through the above mentioned cheque to the two accounts and that the same is legal, alleging the same complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Cr.No.455/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, of IPC and 66(C) 66(D) of IT Act.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and has further submitted that petitioner has been working as employee of the Canara Bank since 2 decades and he has been working as Manager in Canara Bank for 2 years. The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the said case and there is no allegations made against present petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and the alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition. 4 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024

4. After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has

appeared and filed objection contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also further contended that the petitioner without any authorisation by the complainant has transferred the amount to the bank accounts and also the learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the petitioner has illegally authorised the RTGS transaction. The learned Public Prosecutor also further contended that complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner has involved int he alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the case some of the accused persons are habitual offenders. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that as the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the accused is allowed there is every chance of of the petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my

consideration.-

1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient ground to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following 5 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioners counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has further contended that the petitioner has been working as employee of the Canara Bank since 2 decades and he has been working as Manager in Canara Bank for 2 years. The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the said case and there is no allegations made against present petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and the alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the accused persons have involved in the alleged offence. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that at this stage, if the bail petition of the petitioners is allowed there is every chance of the petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

9. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the

complainant is a private limited running in the name M/s Creative Diesel Services Pvt.Limited had opened an OD account bearing No.125004045742 with Canara Bank, Hanumantha Nagar Branch and is in operation since several years. On 2.03.2024 around 2:54 pm the 6 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024 complainant received a call from number 935487918 claiming to be Sri.Raghavendra Prasad Pvt. ltd and told that he has an urgent RTGS transaction which will be initiated through mail and cheque will be produced in hard copy, later in the evening the complainant having received call from the said number he has saved the name as Raghavendra Prasad.K. seeing in the true caller App and the said person called around 12 times to the complainant starting from 2:54 p.m. and subsequently sent mail to branch mail ID from mail ID creativedieselservicespvtltd@gmail.com at 4:04 pm. On continues calls, enormous pressure from a regular customer and under the good faith believing that the party is genuine and considering the copy of the cheque with signature of all three signatories sent via mail requesting for the transaction mentioned thereunder is authentic, the complainant authorised the said request for RTGS transaction with a good faith and regular/usual course of business with no malafide intentions. The complainant on subsequent verification found that the letter head of the company submitted to the bank is fake and mobile No.935478918 through which the petitioner received the call does not belong or is used by the either of the Directors nor the employees of the company. the signature and seal used in the letter head is fake, the cheque leaf given by the complainant to a third party was edited forwarded to the bank through Email. The complainant had never requested through written letter and issued the said cheque for transfer of amount through RTGS. It is also alleged that due to the act of the Manager of the Canara Bank, Hanumantha Nagar Branch, the petitioner herein such that he authorised and transferred the amount without verification or intimating through the above mentioned cheque to the two accounts and that the same is illegal as such alleging the same complaint has been lodged. 7 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024

10. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences

alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, of IPC and 66(C) 66(D) of IT Act. . The offence alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner has contended that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also to co operate with investigation, as the case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has involved in the alleged offence. The guilt of the petitioner has to be proved during the course of trial as the case is still under the stage of investigation, the petitioner having contended that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions and also co-operate with the investigation, the apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner, he can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following.-

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioners/ accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The respondent CEN Crime police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the 8 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024 event of their arrest in Crime No.455/2024 registered by the CEN Crime police for the offences punishable under Sections Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, of IPC and 66(C) 66(D) of IT Act on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the IO whenever he is called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in what so ever manner.

4. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity.

5. The petitioner shall produce the permanent address proof document.

(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27th day of March, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/c LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,(CCH-67) Bengaluru. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2808/2024