V. Srishananda, J
1. Heard Sri.Akshaya Anil Katti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.62/2025 of Chittavadagi Police Station, wherein accused is alleged with the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1. Stephen Pal Raj K., Senior Branch Head, Hitachi Cash Management Services Private Limited, filed an intimation with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hospete on 11.09.2025 stating that his company has undertaken the cash replacement services to the Automated Teller Machine (hereinafter ‘ATM’ for short) of various banks and he had engaged Praveen Kumar who is the present petitioner and Srikantha T. who is accused No.2 to load the cash to the ATM machines at Vaddu and Donimalai locations.
3.2. It is further alleged that on 31.08.2025, agency noticed that there is a short loading of the cash to the tune of Rs.80,56,100/- in the respect of five ATMs situated in various places in Hospete, Vaddu and Donimalai and has noted that it is the petitioner and accused No.2 who are responsible for the missing cash and sought for action.
3.3. Thereafter, Chittavadagi police station registered the case and are investigating the matter.
4. From the date of incident, petitioner and accused No.2 have remained absent to their duty and their whereabouts are not available and they are absconding.
5. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. Thereafter, accused No.1/petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not an absconding accused and is a law abiding citizen and he is finding it difficult to appear before the Investigation Officer inasmuch as he would be treated with the third degree method and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Further, he would submit that petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation in all respects and therefore, anticipatory bail is to be granted.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail grounds by contending that the fraud is to the tune of over ₹80,00,000/- and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to recover the cash and also unearth the truth in the incident.
10. It is also urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner is the kingpin in the incident and his presence is very much necessary and custodial interrogation is necessary to crack the crime and sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, from the date of incident, petitioner is not found and according to the investigation agency, the petitioner and accused No.2 are absconding.
13. Efforts made by the Investigation Agency would go to show that the petitioner is not available in the address that has been furnished to the complainant nor is attending the duty.
14. Therefore, prima facie there is sufficient force in the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner can be termed as an absconding accused.
15. However, since the investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed, the real meaning of ‘absconding accused’ cannot be imported in the case on hand. All that the material on record would reveal is that petitioner is not available for the Investigation Agency.
16. In order to balance the right of the petitioner and the need of the prosecution for the custodial interrogation, if the petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer and undergo limited period of custodial interrogation, ends of justice would be met. Further, it would also facilitate the investigation process including the recovery of the stolen cash.
17. Therefore, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the matter, following:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer positively on 23.01.2026 at 09.00 a.m.
iii. Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and conclude the custodial interrogation on the very same day before 07.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.
iv. Petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation Agency in all respects including furnishing of mobile telephone, passwords, fingerprints etc.
v. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
vi. Petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly.
vii. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigation Officer between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. every third Sunday till the final report is filed.
viii. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Hospete jurisdiction without prior permission.
Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
