Karnataka High Court: In a criminal petition filed to seek bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’)1, a Single Judge Bench of H.P. Sandesh, J. rejected the petition and denied bail to the accused. The Court took note of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) which casts a bar on granting bail to a person accused of committing an offence under PMLA.
Background
The petitioner in the present matter was the founder and chairman of a co-operative bank namely Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank and was accused of committing an offence under Section 3 of PMLA. It was alleged that he was the architect of a fraud wherein he misappropriated Rs. 1553 crores by creating bogus and fake deposits out of which Rs. 882.85 crores were sanctioned to 24 major beneficiaries.
This matter was considered by the Court twice and a Special Leave Petition regarding the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16-09-2022. The accused also had another case filed against him wherein he was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004.
The petitioner contended that he had been in custody for two years seven months whereas the maximum punishment under Section 5 of PMLA is seven years. It was also contended that the Trial Court’s reasons for rejecting his bail were not correct.
The respondent contended that earlier, the Court had dealt with this matter in detail and rejected the petition after taking note of the gravity of the offence. It was also contended that the petitioner was accused in two cases both of which, had different trials and procedures and thus, the Trial Cout had correctly concluded that Section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) would not be applicable to the case at hand.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the main ground being urged was that the accused was entitled to bail under Section 479(1) of BNSS since he had been in custody for two years and seven months. It was also noted that Section 479(2) states that in cases wherein investigation, inquiry, or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail.
Further, the Court said that when offences that the person is accused of are different or there are multiple cases registered against the petitioner, he cannot invoke the proviso under Section 479 of BNSS.
The Court stated that because of the existence of a saving clause under Section 531 of BNSS, the question of invoking a provision of the new enactment will not be applicable and that the Trial Court had taken note of this while rejecting the bail application.
The Court said that merely because the accused had been in custody for the last two years and seven months, he cannot be enlarged on bail when an offence under PMLA is invoked and the charge levelled against him is of committing fraud by creating fictitious documents and granting loan in favour of fictitious persons.
Thus, the Court did not find any merit in the petition and rejected the same.
[K. Ramakrishna v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Petition no. 9930/2024, decided on 23-11-2024]
Judgment pronounced by H.P. Sandesh, J
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner- Adv. Sri. Balakrishna M.R.
For the respondent- CGSC Sri. Unnikrishnan M.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Sections 316(2), 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
