Prima facie evidence of misappropriation and the necessity of custodial interrogation are key factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Feroze Nizam A., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

'Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant anticipatory bail by directing the respondent police i.e. Basavanagudi Police Station to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of any arrest in Cr. No.201/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 403, 409, 420 and 468 r/w section 34 of IPC registered before the Respondent Basavanagudi Police Station and pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore with such other terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.'

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Upon the complaint lodged by Sachin Patil, Basavanagudi Police registered a case in Crime No.201/2022 on 16.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 IPC against the petitioner and Smt.Rajeshwari.

4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioner along with other accused were working as Bill Collector and they collected the money from the customers of BWSSB, but did not remit the same to the BWSSB, and in the accounts of the customers, an entry was made stating that the bill has been paid. When the internal audit was ordered, the discrepancies were noted and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in his period, out of 63 cases, 46 cases were noticed where the petitioner has collected the money from the customers and did not remit the same to the tune of Rs.2,29,551/-.

5. Based on the said complaint, after registering the case, police are investigating the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner is absconding from the date of complaint.

6. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, by order dated 26.12.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.12498/2022. Thereafter the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition contended that petitioner is not responsible for the alleged misappropriation and the order passed against the complainant suspending him from the services itself clearly shows that the alleged misappropriation has taken place by the persons who are working as outsourced persons and therefore, the petitioner has no role in such misappropriation and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Per contra, learned HCGP reiterating the contentions urged in the objections statement contended that out of 63 cases, there is clear misappropriation in 46 cases, which is straight away attributable to the petitioner and the misappropriated amount is to the tune of Rs.2,29,551/- and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary.

9. He also pointed out that for the entries to be made in the website, there must be a Login ID and password which were not known to the others and how petitioner could crack the password and make entries in the customers files, is a matter that needs a detailed investigation after the petitioner is taken to the custody and there may be possibility of several other such misdeeds owing to the fact that the password has been misused by the petitioner and sought for rejection of the bail petition.

10. Perused the material on records meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a Bill Collector. When the internal audit took place, the auditors noted several discrepancies wherein the entries in the website of the BWSSB with regard to the individual customers reflected that money has been remitted by the customers for consumption of the water charges, but the same was actually no