The main legal point established is that the lack of wrongful loss and the limited role of the accused in the alleged offense can be grounds for granting bail.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri.Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C with the following prayer:

'WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Petition by granting him Bail in Sadashivanagara Police Station Crime No:193/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending on the files of the learned XXXIX additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in the interest of justice.'

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

a complaint came to be lodged by Sri.T.Nagaraju, Chief Manager of State Bank of India on 06.12.2018, which came to be registered as a criminal case in Sadashivanagara Police Station in Crime No.193/2018 on 06.12.2018 for the following offences:

'Sections 120B, 149, 471, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.'

4. The gist of the complaint averments is that; a Demand Draft bearing No.421301 in a sum of Rs.9,69,22,610/- drawn on Saptasagara Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited was presented in the said Bank. In order to ascertain the veracity of the said Demand Draft, State Bank of India official verified the same by sending an E-mail on 29.11.2018 at about 2.25 pm. On such verification, the said demand draft turned out to be a fake demand draft. accordingly action was sought for.

5. The police after registering the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, inter alia arrested the present petitioner on 02.02.2022.

6. The attempt made by the petitioner to seek grant of bail in Crl.Misc.No.1415/2022 was turned down by order dated 25.02.2022 by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, reiterating the bail grounds vehemently contended that the petitioner is the Chairman of Saptasagara Sowharda Credit Co-operative Limited and is not in charge of the day-to-day affairs and he is not aware as to who prepared the fake demand draft as it is from Saptasagara Sowharda Credit Co-operative Limited and police after thorough investigation has filed the necessary charge sheet and therefore, continuation of the accused - petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted and thus, sought for grant of bail.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition stating that the amount mentioned in the demand draft is Rs.9,69,22,610/- and therefore, continuation of the present petitioner in judicial custody is very much necessary in order to avoid repetition of such things in future.

9. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

10. admittedly, there is no money paid under the demand draft as before that encashment, the complainant-Bank is ascertained the veracity of the same and no wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant - Bank nor anybody gained wrongfully which is a sine qua non for attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Having said so, the very preparation of the demand draft for such a huge sum cannot be lost sight of this Court. any way, the same is the subject matter of the trial before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

11. Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage especially having regard to the fact that the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner being only the Chairman of Saptasagara Sowharda Credit Co-operative Limited, who is not in charge of day-to-day affairs and is only responsible for the over all acts of the Bank, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for ground for grant of bail.

12. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution can be met with, by imposing stringent conditions. accordingly, this Court pass the following;

ORDER

(i) The petit