Sri Deepak S/O Ashok Moodalgi vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Deepak, an Accounts Officer at Achchukattu Pradesh Development Authority, Jamkhandi Taluk, is accused of misappropriating over Rs. 3 crores by releasing funds to contractors (accused Nos. 2 and 3) without actual work, deducting GST from bills. He allegedly selected these contractors and paid them commissions. The FIR was registered in Crime No. 340/2021, and the petitioner was arrested on October 29, 2021. The police filed a charge sheet. Previous bail petitions were dismissed or withdrawn. The petitioner claims to be in custody for nearly two years, with no case progress, and cites family medical emergencies (paralyzed father, bed-ridden father, wife with cancer, young children) as reasons for his release. The prosecution argues the trial is about to commence, investigation is ongoing, and recovery of articles (40 items, gold, cash) and property attachment have occurred.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition and directed the trial court to release the petitioner on bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for almost two years, and the investigation was still ongoing despite the charge sheet being filed long ago. The Court observed that the alleged offences, except for Section 409 of IPC, are punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment. The Court also considered the medical records of the petitioner's parents and wife, highlighting their serious ailments, and the presence of young children requiring his care. The Court found that granting bail would not cause prejudice to the prosecution case, especially since some articles had already been seized and the trial had not yet begun. The petitioner was granted bail subject to several conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs. 5.00 lakhs with two sureties, not entering the office, not indulging in similar offences, not tampering with witnesses, cooperating with the investigation for recovery and attachment, and appearing before the Investigating Officer periodically.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, who has been in custody for approximately two years, is entitled to be released on bail, considering the alleged offences are punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment (except Section 409 IPC), and the trial has not yet commenced? 2. Whether the petitioner's presence is required for further investigation, given that a charge sheet has been filed and some articles have been recovered and properties attached? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he has been in custody for almost two years with no case progress. He argues that recovery has been made, rendering his presence unnecessary. He emphasizes his family's critical medical conditions (mother paralyzed, father bed-ridden, wife suffering from cancer) and the need for his care for his young children (aged 5 and 9) and family members. He relies on Supreme Court judgments holding that bail should be granted for offences punishable with seven years imprisonment. Revenue's Arguments: The State (respondent) submits that the trial is about to commence. It states that the investigation is being conducted by the CID, and some articles, gold ornaments, and cash have been recovered, with house property attached. The State argues that the petitioner's presence is required for investigation and that he might destroy evidence if released.