- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12089 CRL.P No. 2664 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SURESH @ SURESH KUMAR N S/O NAGARAJAPPA T AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC WORKING AT PRIVATE COMPANY R/AT BEHIND SRI KRISHNA TEMPLE WATER TANK ROAD, VEDAVATHI NAGAR HIRIYUR TOWN, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERESHA E, ADV.) AND: THE STATE BY HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PUSHPALATHA B, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.146/2024 OF HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION, HIRIYURU FOR ALLEGING THE OFFENCE P/U/S 34, 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12089 CRL.P No. 2664 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused No.2 in Crime No.146/2024 registered by Hiriyur Town Police Station, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.146/2024 was registered by Hiriyur Town Police Station, Chitradurga, for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 18.05.2024 received from Keshappa Durgad against Abdul Basha and others. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the FIR. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.1600/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 25.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner has been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12089 CRL.P No. 2664 of 2025 falsely implicated and he has no criminal antecedents. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. 6. The material on record would go to show that first informant is the Area Manager of Pragathi Fin-serve Limited Company and accused persons are said to be the employees of the aforesaid Company in its Branch Office at Hiriyur, Chitradurga District. In the first information, it is alleged that auditing of the Branch Office of the Company at Hiriyur was done from 02.04.2024 to 08.04.2024 and in the Audit Report, it was found that an amount of Rs.36,32,576/- was misappropriated by accused persons named in the FIR during the period between October-2023 to January-2024. It is averred that accused persons had created 76 fraudulent accounts in the name of fictitious persons and a sum of Rs.36,32,576/- was transferred to the said accounts in the form of loan amount and thereafter, misappropriated by accused persons. The alleged offence is punishable with life imprisonment. After the Audit Report revealed about - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12089 CRL.P No. 2664 of 2025 misappropriation, it was found that petitioner had unauthorizedly absented himself to duty and therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him. In response to the said show cause notice, petitioner has submitted his resignation. Because of this conduct of the petitioner, a serious doubt arises against him. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has not cooperated with the police for the purpose of investigation. Petitioner, who was occupying a responsible post has misused the trust and allegedly has misappropriated huge money. Under the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner becomes necessary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN