SUBHASH BADI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2339 of 2012 · Karnataka High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
Accordingly, petition is partly allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 409, 468, 471
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. Petition of Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 is rejected. He may revise application after the chargesheet filed. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 enlarged 4nr bail. Accordingly, the petition Is ailowed. Petitioner4 is enlarged on bail subject to following conditions: i) The petitioner shall…
Judgment
SRI. C RAJANNA S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA DOMMSANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, SURJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT 2 SRI. RAMESH 5/0 MUTHAPPA DOMASANDRA POST, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT (By SrLTOMY SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES. ADVS) STATE OF KARNAIAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BANGALORE By SrLSATISH P\.GiRJi, HCGP) This CrLP is fiie.d u/sA39 CnRC, praying to release he pet Lsnes r bs o 92, 2312 t HAL Pc S. a I Station, Bangalore for the offences p/u/s.409, 468 and 471 of IPC. This Crl.P coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER This petition is by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.92/2012 registered by HAL Police for offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and• 471 of IPC. Petitioner/Accused No.1 who was working as a Contract Labourer In the Finance Department of Aero Division of HAL, fraudulantly altered the RTGS payment bills and got the amount credited in the account of Accused No.2. The bank authorities, during the investigation, found that an amount to the tune of Rs.62,00,000/- has been misappropriated by the accused No.1. Accordingly, the case has been registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there Is no embezzlement and at the best, the case may attract provIsions of SectIon 408 and not 409 of IPC. He also submIts that Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail In Petition No.2127/12 dated 10t May 2012. 4’ a. C)
In so far as Accused No.1 is concerned, there is a serious allegation and he is the person directly connected with the transfer of documents pertaining to RTGS which have been stated to have been tampered. Therefore, his ball application is rejected.
Operative part
Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. Petition of Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 is rejected. He may revise application after the chargesheet filed. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 enlarged 4nr bail. Accordingly, the petition Is ailowed. Petitioner4 is enlarged on bail subject to following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Thai Court; ii) He shah regularly attend the Court on hearing dates. W) He shaH not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, Sd/ JUDGE bnv*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, petition is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 409, 468, 471.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.