- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2242 CRL.P No. 200603 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200603 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MILIND S/O MAREPPA SONI AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O. CHIDRI, BIDAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BIDAR, NOW REP. BY ADDITIONAL SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ A-1 AS PER FIR ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.40/2025 OF NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 418, 420, 465, 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR IN CRIME NO.40/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2242 CRL.P No. 200603 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.40/2025 of respondent - police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 465, 471 of IPC pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar Factual matrix of the case: 2. The petitioner was appointed as an employee of the Company, namely, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. He was assigned to get the insurance policies done from the customers and also to issue insurance policies to vehicles etc. He was taking care of all the insurance policies relating to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. Recently, in the year February-2024, the bank officials have informed the complainant stating that the customer of the policy bearing No.OG-23-3859-4056-00000141 applied for claiming the insurance. The policy standing in the name of Shivananda Agency. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2242 CRL.P No. 200603 of 2025 3. It is stated that the said policy was verified by the complainant and he found that the policy was standing in the name of Tirumala Grocery Shop. Immediately, he informed the Karnataka Bank stating that the policy has been fabricated and therefore, he instructed the bank authority to stop further proceedings. Thereafter, the complainant personally enquired the petitioner about the fabrication of the policy. 4. It is further stated that the complainant after conducting inquiry found that the petitioner has committed fraud to the company. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner before the respondent-Police. The respondent – Police after registering the case in Crime No.40/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 465, 471, 406 and 420 of IPC, proceeded with the investigation. 5. Heard, Sri. Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2242 CRL.P No. 200603 of 2025 alleged incident had not taken place at his instance. In fact, he was removed from the Company in the month of August-2024. However, a complaint came to be registered on 07.03.2025 after lapse of more than six months. The said delay has not been explained properly. Therefore, the bail application may be considered and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 7. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the petitioner was working as an employee of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. He was working as an employee of the said Company, committed fraud against the company. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered belatedly for the reason that the company had to conduct an inquiry to bring out the truth or otherwise. As such, the delay has been explained. In addition to the inquiry, the custodial interrogation by the Investigating Officer is necessary. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner is stated to have committed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2242 CRL.P No. 200603 of 2025 offences as stated supra. Prima-facie, there are materials to show that the petitioner has committed fraud on the Company and also to the customers. Therefore, at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:PK