KABC010088292024 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, Bengaluru. Dated this the 5 th day of April, 2024 Crl.Misc.No. 3123 of 2024 PETITIONER/S:- Smt. K.V.NIRMALA, W/o. Prakash Reddy R, Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.107, 8th Cross, 6th Main, J R Green Par, Marsur Gate, Anekal Taluk, Marasur, Bangalore-562 106 (Accused No.6) (By Sri. G.K.Venkataprakash., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT/S:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 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 petitioners in Crime No.72/2024 registered by the respondent Rajagopal Nagar police for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case.-

The complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that he is the Senior Manager Vigilance of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd. And accused No.6 was working as Senior Manager in Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Peenya Branch. On 18.11.2023 when the Regional Managers were verifying the internal ledgers in the heads across various branches of Karnataka and other States, they came across large debit balance of Rs.49,03,371-95 in sundry account of Peenya Branch, when clarification was sought from the accused No.1 who was branch Manager, he could not provide any satisfactory reasons and on internal investigation initiated by the bank it was revealed that the said accused No.1 has used the sundry office amount and misappropriated an amount to an extent of Rs.1,20,36,167-59 and remitted the same to the accounts of his relatives and after investigation the bank has also recovered Rs.94,00,000/- from accused No.1 and the remaining amount to be recovered from accused No.1 is Rs.26,36,167-59, alleging the said facts complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in crime No.72/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner; they are visiting the house of the petitioner round the clock. The incident took place on 30.04.2022 to 18.11.2023, but the complaint lodged on 22.02.2024, after lapse of 3 months the complainant has lodged the above said false complaint against the innocent petitioner, hence the ingredienkts of Section 406, 408, 420 R/w 34 of IPC does not attracts against the present petitioner. There is 3 months inordinate delay in lodging the said complaint, hence it is afterthought complaint. The present petitioner is falsely implicated in the above said alleged offences, hence the ingredients of Section 406, 408, 420 R/w. 34 of IPC does not attracts against the present petitioner. The complaint has lodged the criminal case against the accused person, the respondent police have falsely implicated the innocent petitioner in the above said case in order to harass and humiliate the innocent petitioner. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.1649, First Floor, 5th Cross, 21st Main, Sector-I, HSR Layout, Bangalore-560 102, consisting of 3 BHK, the accused No.1 is the tenant under the present petitioner, both were executed the rental agreement on 05.05.2023, thereafter the accused No.1 being the Manager of the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank and he has transferred a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the account of the petitioner on 29.04.2023 as a security deposit amount, and thereafter every month the accused No.1 had transferred a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards the monthly rent to the account of the petitioner, except the above transaction, there is no any transaction between the accused No.1 and the petitioner. Except the landlord and the tenant, there is no 4 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 any transaction between the present petitioner, she is falsely implicated in the above said case, hence the ingredients of Section 406, 408, 420 R/w 34 of IPC.

4. The complainant clearly admits in the complaint that, he

has transacted with the other accused persons, but the present petitioner is not aware of the complainant, and he has not at all involved in the alleged incident. The petitioner is nowhere connected in the said case The petitioner has apprehension of being arrested and then tortured, humiliated at the hands of the respondent police. The complaint is bald and does not reflect any attributes towards this petitioner. As such none of the alleged sections would attract to the provisions of law to punish the person. The entire matter is regarding property dispute, hence it is purely civil in nature. The accused No.1 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.1997/2024 dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-66), on the ground of parity the present petitioner may be enlarge on bail. The petitioner have not at all involve in the above said case directly or indirectly, the respondent police have falsely implicated them in the said case to support the complainant, and also to detain their reputation in the society.

5. The alleged offence is not punishable for life or death

exclusively as such there is no legal embargo imposed on this court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The said matter is the property dispute, it is purely civil in nature. The respondent police making hectic efforts to arrest the present petitioner in the present case, and they are visiting very often and often at the resident of the petitioner to arrest the petitioner in the alleged offence. 5 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 The petitioner submits that she is innocent of the alleged offences and have further contended that she had not committed any offences. The petitioner had further contended that the allegations in the complaint is against accused No.6 who has committed the alleged offence and she is the employee of the bank and the petitioner is nothing to do with the incident as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner further submits that there is no specific allegations against the petitioner as such the offences alleged against the petitioner is not attracted. The petitioner further submits that she is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

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

appeared and filed objection contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also further contended that the accused have misappropriated the amount with an intention to cheat the customers and the bank. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that as the case is still under the stage of investigation at this stage, if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chance of of the petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

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

consideration.- 6 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024

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

2. What order?

8. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following

REASONS

9. Point No.1:- The petitioner counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has further contended that the accused No.6 was working as Senior Manager in Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Peenya Branch. On the basis of the false complaint of the complainant that on 18.11.2023 when the Regional Managers were verifying the internal ledgers in the heads across various branches of Karnataka and other States, they came across large debit balance of Rs.49,03,371-95 in sundry account of Peenya Branch, when clarification was sought from the accused No.6 who was Senior Manager, since she could not provide any satisfactory reasons, internal investigation was initiated by the bank which revealed that the accused No.1 has used the sundry office amount and misappropriated an amount to an extent of Rs.1,20,36,167- 59 and remitted the same to the accounts of his relatives and after investigation the bank has also recovered Rs.94,00,000/- from accused No.1 and the remaining amount to be recovered from accused No.1 is Rs.26,36,167-59. There is no specific allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that 7 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 allegations made against the petitioner is false and further contended that petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous in nature and also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner has involved in the alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous as the case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of the petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

11. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the complainant

being the Senior Manager of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd. has lodged the complaint alleging that the accused No.6 was working as Senior Manager in Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Peenya Branch. On 18.11.2023 when the Regional Managers were verifying the internal ledgers in the heads across various branches of Karnataka and other States, they came across large debit balance of Rs.49,03,371-95 in sundry account of Peenya Branch, when clarification was sought from the accused No.6 who was Senior Manager, she could not provide any satisfactory reasons and on internal investigation initiated by the bank it was revealed that the said accused No.1 has used the sundry office 8 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 amount and misappropriated an amount to an extent of Rs.1,20,36,167- 59 and remitted the same to the accounts of his relatives and after investigation the bank has also recovered Rs.94,00,000/- from accused No.6 and the remaining amount to be recovered from accused No.6 is Rs.26,36,167-59, alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint.

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

alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 406, 408, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The allegations made in the complaint against the accused is that the accused No.1 has misappropriated the funds of the bank in sundry office account and the bank has also recovered an amount of Rs.94,00,000/- from accused No.6. Though the allegations made against the accused is grievous in nature and also the amount involved is huge, the allegations against the present petitioner is that the accused No.6 has misappropriated and transferred the amount to the accounts of the petitioner. The said allegations made against the petitioner is to be proved during the course of trial as the case is still under the stage of investigation. At this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offences. The offences alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner is contended that she is ready and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and also to co operate with the investigation. The apprehension of the persecution 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, she can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am 9 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 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.

13. 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 petitioner/ accused No.6 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The respondent Rajgopalanagara police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.72/2024 registered by the Rajagopalanagara police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the investigation.

2. The petitioners shall appear before the I.O whenever they are called upon for the purpose of investigation

3. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in what so ever manner. 10 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024

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

5. The petitioners 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 5th day of April, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 11 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 Orders pronounced in open court vide separate order with following operative portion:

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.6 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The respondent Rajgopalanagara police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.72/2024 registered by the Rajagopalanagara police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioners shall appear

before the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the investigation.

2. The petitioners shall appear

before the I.O whenever they are 12 Crl.Misc.No.3123/2024 called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioners shall not

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

4. The petitioners shall not

involve in any criminal activity.

5. The petitioners shall

produce the permanent address proof document. LXV Addl. CC & SJ, (CCH-66) Bengaluru.