IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREI)DY CRL.P.Nos.10l1l/201i, 10112/11, 10113/11 BETWEEN: Sri Ashok, Sb Ningappa Hosamani, Aged about 53 years, Vidyagir Bank, Bilagi, Presently working as Zonal Manager, Corporation Banck. Lucknow, Bihar. ... Common Petitioner (By Shri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through Police Sub-Inspector, Bilagi, Bagalkot Dist. Rep. by the Addi. SPP. High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. ... Common Respondent (By Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, GP) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime Nos.277/2010, 278/10 and 279/10, registered at Bilagi Police Station. These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following common order: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. All these petitions pertain to the same petitioner. The allegations are that, the present petitioner, while working as Branch Manager at the Corporation Bank, Bilagi Branch, in the year 2005 was instrumental in granting crop loans to various persons. It transpired that the complainant who had taken charge as Branch Manager of Bilagi Branch on 29.04.2009, has lodged a complaint before the Bilagi Police to that effect that, after taking charge as Branch Manager, he found that there were outstanding crop loans which remained unpaid even after a long lapse. During the course of verification, he found that one Dadapeer Konnur and Mosin Lohari of Bgalkot had obtained loans by creating false documents and impersonating the actual owners of the lands, in order to obtain illegal benefit of the loan amount. He found that the accused persons had further indulged in creating false documents by forging seals and signatures of officials and also created false residential proof certificates and valuation certificates apart from creating other forged documents. It is in this background, that a complaint had been lodged against the present petitioner, on the further accusation that the petitioner herein had granted loans without proper verification of the false and forged documents produced by the persons who had obtained the loans. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Court below seeking bail, which has been rejected both by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, as well as the Court of Sessions, on the ground that the matter being still under active investigation, the petitioner had not made out a case for enlargement on bail. 4 3. Incidentally, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out that it may not be prima facie said that the petitioner was involved in the alleged acts of forgery and creation of false documents and further, that there is no departmental inquiry or other proceeding initiated by the employer. But it is only on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Branch Manager, who has claimed that he has discovered the acts of forgery and false documentation that the complaint is sought to be alleged against the petitioner as well, apart from the other accused persons. Therefore, he would submit, that even if a case is made out as against others who may have indulged in such unlawful acts, it cannot be said that the present petitioner was actively involved with them, in the absence of other material being placed on record. 4. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, as rightly held by both the courts below, the prosecution pertains to the year 2005 and therefore it involves voluminous documents pertaining to a long period. This may lead to other alleged acts indulged by the petitioner and therefore, the Investigation Officers are proceeding with extreme caution and in that view of the matter, the petitioner being enlarged on bail, would result in the petitioner actively tampering the documents or interfering with the Investigation Agencies which might seriously hamper the prosecution case and therefore, would oppose the bail application. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the allegations are accepted, it is not clear as to how a case is made out against the petitioner who is not shown to have benefited by these transactions, on the face of it. In this view of the matter, while it is possible that the petitioner may have been involved on the basis of material that is yet to be discovered, at this point of time, the petitioner has certainly made out a case for enlargement on bail and hence, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in these three petitions. 6 6. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall furnish a self-bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, with a solvent surety for a like sum, in each case, to the satisliction of the trial Court. 2. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe trial Court without leave ofthat Court. 3. The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes ofinvestigation. 4. The petitioner shall not seek to threaten or tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses or the complainant at any point oftime. 5. The petitioner shall attend the trial on every date of hearing, except if exempted from such appearance for good and valid reason. Sd! JUDGE Sub/