Mr. Brijmohan K S vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Brijmohan K.S., is the de facto complainant and first informant in a criminal case registered as Crime No. 8/2021 at Sheshadripuram Police Station. The case involves allegations of misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 17,73,00,000/- by partners of M/s. Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons and RCA Industries. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 2, Mr. Padmanabhasa K.L., a partner entrusted with financial decisions and payment approvals, colluded with others to create false invoices in the name of Surabhi Enterprises, a purported fake company, to siphon off firm funds. Respondent No. 2, aged 81, was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, while anticipatory bail for accused No. 1 was rejected. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition and set aside/cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2. The Court found that the Sessions Judge erred in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 without assigning proper reasons, relying solely on his age, which is not a decisive factor in cases of cheating and misappropriation. The Court noted that respondent No. 2, as an authorized signatory and custodian of firm documents, was prima facie involved in the alleged misappropriation and creation of false documents. The Court observed that respondent No. 2's failure to surrender before the police for approximately 13 days after the bail order, despite the order being passed on 12.03.2021, indicated a potential for tampering with evidence and obstructing the investigation. The Court emphasized that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would hinder the investigation, especially as other accused were also absconding. The Court concluded that the Sessions Judge's finding that respondent No. 2 was not responsible for creating documents was perverse and against the material on record. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that bail can be cancelled if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities, ignores relevant material, or considers irrelevant material. The Court directed the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, aged 81, is erroneous and based on extraneous considerations, particularly when the allegations involve economic offences and breach of trust, thereby warranting cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge's order was erroneous and based on extraneous considerations, specifically the age of respondent No. 2. They contended that the case involves serious economic offences and breach of trust, and the investigation is ongoing, requiring custodial interrogation. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasize the gravity of such offences. They further argued that respondent No. 2, as an authorized signatory and custodian of documents, is directly involved and that his failure to surrender before the police for 13 days after the bail order indicates a violation and potential destruction of evidence. The petitioner also pointed out that the Sessions Judge failed to assign proper reasons for granting bail to respondent No. 2, unlike the rejection of bail for accused No. 1. Respondent No. 2's arguments: Respondent No. 2 contended that he has not violated any bail conditions and highlighted his age. He argued that the allegations are not directly against him regarding the creation of fake bills. He also relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding bail considerations, including the gravity of the crime, character of evidence, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.