SMT.SULAKSHA M. PEDNEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and to release her on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.191/2019 of Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru city registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 419 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC against the petitioner/accused and 19 other accused on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Smt.Kamakshi K., Additional District Manager of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as 'the Corporation' for short).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged the first information against the accused for the above offences contending that accused No.1 being the Manager of the Canara Bank, accused Nos.2 to 9 being the employees of the Corporation and accused Nos.10 to 20 being the middle men, have misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,30,22,000/- which was released as subsidy amount to be credited to the account of the beneficiaries for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, under the Job Guarantee Scheme, and IST Scheme through Canara Bank, Kalkere Branch, Bengaluru City.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the lady is innocent and law abiding citizen and she has not committed any offences as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter and she is being victimized without any reason. Learned counsel further submitted that there are several employees in the Bank and their role in commission of the offence cannot be ruled out. There is absolutely no reason as to why the present petitioner only was arraigned as accused for commission of offence. Learned counsel further submitted that crime No.146/2020 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station was registered against the present petitioner for having committed the similar offences, on the basis of the first information lodged by the Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank. In the said complaint also, similar allegations are made. But, it is contended that subsity amount of Rs.7,48,17,000/- was misappropriated which was meant to be distributed amongst to the beneficiaries. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that it is nothing but double jeopardy and victimization of the petitioner by multiple complaints. He further contended that in Crime No.146/2020 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, the petitioner is already granted conditional order of anticipatory bail and the petitioner has obliged and complied with all such conditions. In the present case, the petitioner is willing to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and the transactions are borne out by records. He further contended that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail in the ends of justice. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.