AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 32/2013.
The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments in the complaint are that the complainant lodged a complaint for non payment of provident fund amount by the petitioner-company, which is to be paid within the stipulated time for the year 2011-12. Petitioner is the Managing Director of Textile Unit namely, Indus Fila, situate at Industrial area, Thandya, Nanjanagud. Petitioner and others have deducted the amount of employees as provident fund and the amount has not been remitted to the State Bank of India. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint before the respondent-police against the petitioner, on the basis of which, a case has been registered against the petitioner.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that since the petitioner-company is under loss, amount was not paid as per the time schedule. But the petitioner-company is ready to pay the amount with interest. He has also submitted that the respondent-police are making efforts to arrest the petitioner. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the amount deducted from the employees has not been deposited in the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs, which is a public money and thereby, petitioner has misappropriated the amount. There is a criminal breach of trust and the employees are put to financial loss. The investigation of the matter is still in progress. Hence, submitted to reject the petition.
I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
In the complaint the amount deducted which is not all deposited by the petitioner-company towards provident fund of the employees is mentioned month wise by giving exact figures, which would be more than Rs. 11 lakhs and it is a public money. Since it was deducted from the salaries of the employees, it ought to have been deposited as per the time schedule. The case is still under investigation. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.