Sri Raju Jyothiba Bhandagi vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

This case involves a criminal petition filed by Sri. Raju Jyothiba Bhandagi (petitioner/accused No.3) seeking bail. The prosecution alleges that Accused No.1, an Account Officer at Karnataka State Niravari Nigam Ltd., conspired with the petitioner and Accused No.2 to misappropriate unutilized government funds. They allegedly created fake bills in the petitioner's name, a contractor, to siphon off approximately Rs. 2,34,08,222/-. The petitioner was to receive a 6% commission. The total misappropriated amount is stated to be over 5 crores. The petitioner claims innocence, stating the case is against Accused No.1, that he did not receive the commission, and that the investigation is complete with a charge sheet filed.

Held

The Court dismissed the criminal petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's admitted involvement in creating fake bills in his name for construction and tender work, which facilitated the misappropriation of crores of rupees from the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam. The Court found that the petitioner co-operated with Accused No.1 for a 6% commission, and it cannot be said that the petitioner lacked knowledge or intention in cheating the government. The Court noted that the petitioner received a significant amount (Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and odd) and that the mere fact that the offence is triable by a Magistrate does not automatically warrant bail. The petitioner's claim that the amount was adjusted against work and not received directly was not sufficient to grant bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.379/2021, registered for offences under Sections 120B, 403, 409, 465, 468, 471, 201, 204 read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he is innocent, the case is primarily against Accused No.1 who has multiple cases against him, and that the alleged 6% commission was adjusted against labor and contractor work and not directly received. He further argues that the investigation is complete and a charge sheet has been filed, making him eligible for bail. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State, through the High Court Government Pleader, strongly objects to the bail petition and prays for its rejection, arguing that the petitioner's involvement in creating fake bills and receiving crores of rupees indicates his knowledge and intention to cheat the government.