Siddamma W/O Sharanbasappa Yalsangi vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It also observed that the offences alleged were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner had undertaken to abide by any conditions. The Court reasoned that the prosecution would have to establish the guilt of the petitioner in a full-fledged trial. Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the relief sought could be granted by imposing conditions. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two solvent local sureties, subject to several conditions including appearing before the jurisdictional court or investigating officer within 10 days, cooperating with the investigation, furnishing address and identity proof, not threatening or influencing witnesses, not indulging in criminal activities, and attending court proceedings regularly.

Facts

The petitioner, Siddamma, is accused No. 3 in Crime No. 17/2021 registered at Kalaburagi City CEN Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by the Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Darga Branch, Kalaburagi. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted documents for vehicle loans of ₹12,00,000/- and ₹16,00,000/- respectively, which were sanctioned. During an internal audit in February 2021, it was discovered that the GST numbers on the bills submitted by accused Nos. 2 and 3 did not pertain to Nandi Toyota Motor World, Bengaluru, but to Karuna Toyota. An inspection revealed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had submitted fake documents to dupe the bank, causing a loss of ₹25,22,720/-. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. She further contended that she is a woman and would face untold hardship if arrested. The petitioner also submitted that she has repaid a part of the loan amount, ₹2,64,932/-, in two installments and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. The respondent/State opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the investigation is ongoing. They sought rejection of the bail plea.