I V IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 Cr1. P. No. 8322/2010 Between: Kariyappa s/o Bangareppa Parashikyatanavar, Age: 55 years, 0cc: Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kushunur, Tq. Hangal, R/o Akki Alur, Dist Haven - Petitioner (by Sri S.S. Yadrami, Advocate) and The State ofKarnataka by Adur Police Station, Tq. Hangal, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court ofKarnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. Respondent (by Sri V.M. Banakar, H.C.G.P.) This Criminal Petition is filed u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 131/2010 of Adur Police Station, for the offence under Section 408 ofIPC This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following order. N Order 1. The petitioner is working as a Secretary in the Grama Panchayat, Kushunur, Hangal Taluk, Haven District. He is charged for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC in a case registered in Crime No, 131/2010 by the Adur Police. 2. The allegation made against the petitioner is that in a scheme launched by the Government ‘Nirmal Grama Yojana’ providing subsidy for construction of toilets for the villagers, the petitioner has issued cheques twice in respect of the families who have received financial subsidy twice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner has released the amount under the said scheme only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner is an outsider and not a person belonging to the Kusanur village and he necessarily obey the recommendation made by the Grama Panchayath. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the 3 petitioner has misused the finds for his personal use. The Government already placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The total alleged misappropriated amount according to the respondent is only Rs.l5,000/e and if the petitioner is not granted the anticipatory bail he will have to face hardship. Under these circumstances learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed to grant the benefit ofanticipatory bail u/S 438 ofCr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent files statement of objections and contended that as per the documents produced by the petitioner himselfat page no. 15, benefit ofproviding toilets had been provided to the family members more than once and it is a misconduct. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the statement of objections. Since from the date of complaint the petitioner is absconding without available for the prosecution to investigate into the matter. It is not the case of an individual or question of small amount ofRs. 18,000/-. As per the order ofthe Government produced I 4 at page no. 13 of the petition, Government has specifically observed that “on number ofoccasions Government Officials have misused and misappropriated the Government funds which resulted in non implementation of the scheme”. By taking into consideration the above observation the case registered against the petitioner is proper and has to be punished if he has committed the offence. But in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the reason that the petitioner is a Government employee, I feel it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order. Order Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner is allowed with the following conditions. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the police. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for Rs.25,000I- along with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction ofthe Police Officer. He shall comply with the following conditions: k 5 9 1) He shall not, directly or indirectly, threaten the prosecution witnesses nor he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence. 2) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case and approach on all the occasions whenever the 1.0. require his presence. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court, without prior permission of the Investigating Officer/Court concerned. 4) He shall move for regular bail before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date oftheir arrest Liberty is reserved to the State-respondent to file an application for cancellation of bail if violation of any one of the above conditions. Ordered accordingly. sal- 3 bvv