The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. based on the nature of the alleged offences and the petitioner's potential cooperation with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.2/2020 of APMC Police Station, Navanagar, Hubli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 477A and 420 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sadashiva Kondana, Accounts Officer/Enforcement Officer, Regional Office Employees' Provident Funds Organization, Hubli, has filed a complaint alleging that accused No.1-Manojkumar while working as Senior Social Security Assistant in Provident Office, Navanagar had planned and executed the payment of pension arrears amount with the help of some other people even when there was no due amount to be paid as per the Employee Pension Scheme 1995 and the said payment was initiated wrongly through the application of the software by accused through some data entry operators using the user ID of another dealing Assistant and outsourced DEO's Pension arrears adjustment Module in respect of 84 pensioner during the period from 19.11.2014 to 25.08.2015 stated to have occurred EPFO, Regional Office, Navanagar, Hubballi, and out of which payment actually made to 77 pensioners and the total over payment was stated to be to the tune of Rs.16,16,000/-. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.2/2020 of APMC Navanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 477A and 420 of IPC. The petitioner apprehending his arrest, sought anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi in Crl.Misc.No.487/2020 by order dated 15.09.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the secretary of the Karnataka State Veneers Associates, Kavanchur, Sirsi Taluk, U.K. district and he made correspondence through letters requesting to sanction pension arrears to the retired employees of M/s Karnataka State Veneers, Kavanchur and it is for the officer of the EPFO to consider and make the payment. It is his further submission that merely because the petitioner has made correspondence, it will not attract any offence. It is his further submission that the offence has been committed by accused No.1 and the petitioner has no role in the said offence committed by accused No.1. It is his further submission that the petitioner is receiving phone calls from the concerned police station to appear before the police station for enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner appends his arrest. The name of the petitioner is not shown in the FIR and the complaint. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that accused No.1 released the amount to 77 pensioners of Karnataka State Veneers Association, Kavanchur even tough they are not entitled to receive any pension under employee Pension Scheme 1995. It is her further submission that under the conspiracy with accused, the petitioner wrote letter to the EPFO. It is her further submission that investigation is still in progress and the presence of the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. It is her further submission that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will flee from justice and will not be available for investigation and trial. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR and complaint.

7. On looking to the averments of the complaint, the allegation is aga