High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri M Nataraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shri M Nataraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
;N THE HIGH CLOURT 01? KARNATAKA AT BANG£;§_;C}'R'»Evj'\:~.:  *- 

DATED was THE 03:11 my 012' N()YEMBE§'<',"  _ _[ "

BEFORE _
THE H(i)N'BLE MR, JtIsr1cE..As§_10K"'I3, }:tr§c;ii'G§R_: 
CRIMINAL PE'PIT!0N No:43_ §_~_:; op' @095 '  
BETWEEN: J ' 3 A Z V
Sara: M NATARAJ H '  V
s/0 MALLIKARJUNAIAH  '~ '
24.329. 2442 E BLOCK'

SAHAKATRA NACiAR§';   . "
BANGALQRE'; 92_,_"----. V " " '-

 PETITIONER
(By Sri  M NAC%F;vR,5.j'&AS§3€3Q_IATi3S, ADVOCATE)
S'FATE- OF' K15i¥i'?sI:ATAi»iAA"'. V '

 REPBY 'mm l_1LSQ_QE'. C':AfI'E 901.103
' '  _s'rA::'1'm;.LBAVNGA1,oRE----~'
 Q _   RESPONDENT

V’ :~ ?§’Q§IfiP$P§’A, H00?)

‘i’HI’S CRI_;..~?: FILED U/E1438 CRAFKC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR

7 _’I’HE PETITIONER PRNHNG TO ENLARGE THE PETE. ON BAIL IN THE

‘ ” -«.E*e*ENT’i’ OF HIS ARRESF IN CRNO. l’?0/08 OF’ ULSOOI-If GATE POQCE

4. .VS?A’TIQN,TL__WHi”CH IS PENDING BEFGRE THE 6TH ASDLV CHIEF

3 ¥._MET’R(}FfO[}i’_?AN MAGISTRATE, BANCRALORE, WHXCH IS REGD. FOR
“V THE. CIF_FEf€CE P/UISROS, 4’20 CIF’ 11°C.

j …fp§¥1:s <:RL..P, COMING ONIFOR ORDERS THES BAY, THE COURT
' V . mag THE FOLLOWENG:

ORBER

The respondent. mgistcrcd Crime No. 170/3008 _

petitioner for the offences punishabic under ” ., V’

IPC.

2. The case prosecution in hm-‘if is €i3;3t”thc ‘a L.

head cashier of State Bank of Mysnpw/Egéngg
Bangalore, when the A11dito:r; S1i N7tA.VVa3§;;i:§i§1tf§in.%c»a1neAtdtvthe bank
for auditing the accounts 5319:9113 mom, that
pefitioner closed. his” 3116 abs-conded.
The finding the a sum of Rs,12,6{},100]- is
missing and . ”

‘V ,, _3. Stfssions by its order, dt.04.(}9a2008 dismissed
t11¢§ petit:Vi:§;:te}:”s§’ 331j1;ltf:’:3tio11 far bail.

4; ‘ the learned cczutlscl appearing for the

~ s’u}3iaits that the petitioner has a flawless and

mcorcl of :34 years. He submits that the strong mom

V. V~V:qit;a;1″1;1’j{ottj?3c operated by the petitiener aionc. It has to be opcratad

two officials of the bank, it is his finther submission that

311:: strong room has a capacity to aammmodate smly R3,!) Iakhs,

395%

5. Sri Honnappfi. the leaxncd High Court

Plcader for the respondent submits that the petitionezirisv H

accused. Being the custodian of the 1nonr;y”‘i11– the <11;-_: §i1§:§a1ifi. t

not have abandoned the Work place ._

presence is very much required for

6. Whcthcr the pctitione::V.was&..opc:§ati§ig;_j;hc on
his own or with some: other ofI1cJ _’ g mom can

accommodate Rs.9 lakhggr V’a’fi:vV’V1′:o he decided on

the co11clusio13’of.utuI:1e°y:»»h’t:i{i§s;1;’. ti1锑m*€’fit:ioncr has flawless and
his-Inishiess years may be a gmund fbr
grantzing bail a1id__::ut bail. The canduct of the
f§(:tit§one1j.»ii%gé Vv1:1;z§:work and absconding cm 02.07.2008

digemfitjes benefit of anticripatoxy bail. Thc allegations

shake; tgétajih «}%_.jfL.t1:;§’;§g1b1ic, particularly of the deposit holders, in

*7 thve syfiisrjtéiiii itself. I decline to grant anticipatory bail.

. Sd/*
Fudge