Bengaluru, November 9, 2023 – The LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), Sri B.G. Pramoda, has granted anticipatory bail to G.H. Veeranna, a 69-year-old accused in a massive fraud case involving the central government’s Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) scheme. The case centers on the alleged misappropriation of over Rs. 2.18 crore through the release of funds to non-existent organizations using forged documents.

The petitioner, G.H. Veeranna (Accused No. 42), sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 274/2023 registered at the Halasurugate Police Station. He is one among 78 accused facing charges for serious white-collar crimes including criminal breach of trust by a public servant, cheating, forgery, and possession of forged documents, punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 472 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Multi-Crore Fraud Allegations

The criminal case was initiated based on a complaint filed by Raghuveer B.S., the Director of Public Instruction (DPI). The FIR details a scheme involving the alleged siphoning of government funds intended for disabled students.

The allegations stem from the implementation of the IEDSS scheme in Karnataka between 2009-2010 and 2012-2013. The Central Government released a total amount of Rs. 18,39,60,607/- during 2014 for this purpose.

The prosecution’s case hinges on the actions of key officials, primarily Accused No. 1 (Anand, the Director) and Accused No. 2 (Director, Minority, Commission office), who were working in 2014. These officials allegedly released funds to 97 institutions.

However, an audit conducted in 2015 raised a major objection, pointing out that Rs. 2,18,33,695/- had been “released additionally to some self-declared associations.” Furthermore, the audit objected that the amount was not released through proper channels; instead, it was released directly to associations that were “not at all in existence by forging the seal and signature of the releasing authority.”

G.H. Veeranna, the petitioner, was implicated based on the fact that he was an employee working at the relevant time when the funds were released to the alleged beneficiaries.

Petitioner’s Defense and Delay Factor

G.H. Veeranna, represented by Sri Poornachandra B. Pattar, asserted his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated. The key arguments presented for granting anticipatory bail were:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner is a senior citizen, a permanent resident of Ballari, and is ready to cooperate fully with the investigation.
• Documentation-Based Investigation: The defense emphasized that the investigation is largely dependent on documentary evidence, suggesting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who is Accused No. 42, is not required.
• Inordinate Delay in FIR: Crucially, the defense highlighted the significant delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged misappropriation was brought to the knowledge of the concerned authority in 2015 during the audit. Yet, no action was taken at that time, and the complaint leading to the current FIR was lodged many years later.

Prosecution Opposition

The learned Public Prosecutor vigorously opposed the bail petition, citing the grave nature of the offences committed against society and the massive financial loss of over Rs. 2.18 crore caused to the government. The prosecution argued that if the petitioner were released, he might abscond, commit similar offences, destroy evidence, or threaten prosecution witnesses.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

The LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge carefully considered the gravity of the offences alongside the circumstances of the petitioner and the progress of the case.

The Court noted several factors favouring the petitioner:

• Offence Gravity: While serious, the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and they are triable by a learned Magistrate.
• Investigation Nature: The court concurred with the defense that the investigation is primarily “depending upon the documentary evidence.” The judge stated that “Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case.”
• Delay in Complaint: The court explicitly recognized and upheld the defense’s argument on the delay, noting that the concerned authority was aware of the alleged misappropriation in 2015, but no action was taken for years.
• Parity of Treatment: A determining factor was the principle of parity, as the court observed that “other accused against whom similar offences are alleged were already granted anticipatory bail” in numerous preceding criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.Misc.No.9524/2023, 9555/2023, 9601/2023, etc.).
• Protection from Harassment: The judge stressed the importance of protecting the petitioner from “unnecessary hardship and humiliation,” particularly referencing the guidelines set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case.

Concluding that the petitioner’s presence can be secured and the prosecution’s fears can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions, the court ruled in the affirmative.

Conditions Imposed for Release

G.H. Veeranna was granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest, the Halasurugate 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 stringent conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from the date of the order and furnish all necessary information and documents.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.
3. He shall not directly or indirectly threaten the prosecution witnesses or hamper the evidence.
4. The petitioner shall not try to destroy evidence.
5. He shall not leave India without the prior permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.
6. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar or any other nature in the future.

The order ensures the balance between allowing the ongoing investigation to proceed and protecting the liberty of the senior citizen accused.