- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200689 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI YALLAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA WADDAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: S.D.A TAHASHIL OFFICE, LINGASUGUR, R/O. STATION TANDA, CHITTAPUR, TQ.CHITTAPUR, DIST.KALABURAGI - 585211 NOW AT OPP. SANGAM BAR, LINGASUGUR, TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR–584122. 2. SRI VEERESH S/O SHEKHARAPPA KHENED, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, R/O. BEHIND SOHANKUMAR PETROL BUNK, BAZAR AREA, MASKI, TQ.MASKI, DIST.RAICHUR-584124. [VIDE ORDER DATED 26.04.2025 PETITION OF PETITIONER NO.2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED] …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THORUGH SHO LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION, REPT. BY ITS ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION AND THEREBY RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.44/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LINGASUGUR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 336(3), 318(4), 316(5) OF BNS, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT- LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioner who is accused No.1 has approached this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.44/2025 registered by Lingasugur Police Station, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 318(4), 316(5) of BNS, 2023. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 2. Factual matrix of the case: It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was working as Second Division Assistant for the last ten years in the office of the Tahsildar, Lingasugur. He is stated to have misappropriated the funds of Rs.1,87,86,561/- by diverting the amount to the accounts of his wife and children. The Tahsildar, Lingasugur after having found that there are some irregularities in the accounts maintained by the petitioner lodged the complaint before the respondent-Police on 19.02.2025. Based on the said complaint, the respondent-Police have registered the case. The investigation is under progress. 3. Heard Sri.Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is alleged that the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 has committed the offences as stated supra by misappropriating the funds and diverting the same to the accounts of his wife and children, the fact remains that, accounts of all the persons have been freezed and the amount has been transferred to the accounts of the Government. Remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has to be paid to the Government. There might be some irregularity in the accounts, however, the petitioner had no intention to commit fraud to the Government. The petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has deep roots in the society. The petitioner has served more than ten years of service without any black mark. The petitioner will abide the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of releasing him on bail. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that the petitioner being a Government Servant misappropriated the huge amount and diverted the funds and the same has been evidenced in the investigation. Merely because, the amount has been refunded to the accounts of the Government, that itself will not absolve the offences committed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making his submissions, he prays to reject the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the records that this Court directed the Investigating Officer to be present before this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the Investigating Officer appeared before this Court and submitted that the amount stated to have been misappropriated has been refunded to the accounts of the Government. The balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has to be paid to the Government. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 7. Be that as it may, whether the petitioner had committed offences with an intention to defraud the Government or not is the question of fact that has to be decided during the trial. However, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.44/2025 of Lingasugur Police Station, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 318(4), 316(5) of BNS, 2023, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, on the following conditions: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2564 CRL.P No. 200689 of 2025 i. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all the hearing dates without fail. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation preferably on Saturday between 10.00 a.m., and 2.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. iv. It is clarified that the petitioner need not mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer. However, the Investigating Officer is directed not to insist the petitioner to come on every Saturday. Whenever it is required for the investigation, he may summon him and the petitioner has to complete the work within stipulated period as stated above. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11/CT:PK