SHARANABASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. Perused the records.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, the petitioner herein Sharanabasappa S. Meti was working as Chief Administrative Officer in Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, which is an Autonomous body. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 3.00 crore was sanctioned by the Central Government to the account of the said institution for its development. The petitioner was working as in -charge Chief Administrative Officer during that time, under whom one N.V. Jogalekar, Assistant Administrative Officer, Smt. P.K. Shaila, Office Superintendent and R.S. Patil, F.D.A. were working. The petitioner was supervising all the acts in the said institution. In this backdrop, it is alleged that for the year 2011 -12 the audit report has been submitted, wherein, it was found that a sum of Rs. 87,92,463/ - has been mis -appropriated. The complainant, who is the successor of petitioner, in fact has lodged a complaint after receiving the audit report. On these allegations and on the complaint lodged by the concerned Chief Administrative Officer, the police have started the investigation. It is not disputed that the accused - petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2013 and after some investigation he was remanded to judicial custody. At present he is in judicial custody. The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application on the ground that the investigation is in progress and the Investigation Officer has to trace out the other persons who are involved in the alleged offences, and therefore, the custodial investigation by the police is absolutely necessary. I do not understand what is the necessity for keeping this particular person in jail for custodial investigation by the police. All other persons who have involved in the commission of the offence are also the public servants. Till this point of time the stage of the investigation is not known and also that all the other accused persons are arrested or not. For the purpose of arresting those persons the custody of this person, in my opinion, is not necessary. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 409 of I.P.C. Though the offence is punishable up to life imprisonment, but it may also extend to ten years and fine. When it is specifically stated that the petitioner is a public servant then there are no chances of he fleeing away from the justice. However, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release the accused on bail by imposing some stringent conditions. In this context, the learned counsel for petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court reported in - : (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 between Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.