IN THE 111(11 I (Ut R F OF KARNATAKA CiRCUIT BENCh AT DEIARWAD DATED THiS 111! Zis I)AYOF FEBRU ARY 2011 13 1 I ORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRiMINAL PETITON No.10168/2011 BETWEEN: Shri. Mahadev, S 1 ’o. Mosliui p Shriaragavi, Age: 50 years, ()cc: Govcriu lent Servant (Head Master Government Composite High School, Hannikeri). R/o. Hosakeri Galli, Shindii. Tal. and Dist. Belgaum. . . Petitioner (By Shri. Vitthal S. Teli, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka. Represented by the State 1h tic Prosecutor, Through Nesaragi Police Stiiiion. Belgaum. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kumar Na\aLirnath, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petitiu!I is tiled under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant an anticipatory bail, in event arrest of the petitioner by the Nesargi Police in Crime No.39/20 10 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Court, Bailhongal be directed to he enlarged on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406. 409, 420 read with Section 120(B) ofthe Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The lower Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail while noting that the petitioner is a Head Master of Government I ligh School, that he was placed under suspension. Further his name appeared in the First Information Report in Crime No.39.2010 of Nesaragi Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120(B) ofthe Indian Penal Code. The case is registered against the petitioner on the compliant of the Block Education Officer, Bailhongal. According to the complaint, the petitioner is involved in several acts of misappropriation. He had filed Miscellaneous Criminal No.663.2009. which was disposed of on 16.07.2009. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on his apprehension of arrest in the said crime on the condition S imposed to execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50.000/- with one surety and that he shall not repeat the offence and he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and that he should surrender before the Investigation Officer within one week from the date of order and that he shall move for regular bail before the concerned Court within 15 days, but he did not doso. 3. Further on the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor to indicate that many documents having been collected during the Course oh’ investigation, in the light of which, since the allegatioiis are of a serious nature, the apprehension of the investigating agency, that the petitioner is likely to jump bail and tamper with the prosecution witnesses could not be brushed aside and accordingly rejected the petition. These are good reasons in having rejected the bail application, except that the ( iurt having held that the petitioner ought to have approached the Court for regular bail. This cannot any longer be a requirement in law, in view of the b 4 judgement of the Supreme Court reported in “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State ofMaharashira and others”, in 2011(1) SCC cases 694. I lowever, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is rejected. JUDGE Rsh frb. I r