INDRA KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.29/2016 registered with Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. He has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking Anticipatory Bail.

(2.) Heard Sri. R.V.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent - State and perused the records.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working in the office situated at New Delhi and is in no way connected with the transaction of Bangalore Office. Complaint is very vague in nature and does not impute any specific allegations against the petitioner. A plain reading of the complaint shows that the complainant has alleged misappropriation of money based on certain documents. Therefore, the entire case according to the complainant himself is based on documentary evidence. Hence, no custodial interrogation is necessary. However, petitioner as a law abiding citizen is prepared to appear before the police and co -operate with the investigation. With these submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing this petition and to enlarge the petitioner on bail.