The Karnataka High Court while denying bail to a 73-years old accused booked under PMLA held that relief under Section 479(1) BNSS cannot be granted if multiple cases are registered against the accused.

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Petition seeking the relief of bail on different grounds invoking Section 479(1) of BNSS, 2023 and also on the ground that there is a delay in trial and trial has not yet commenced and he has been in custody from two years seven months.

The single-judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh observed, "When the offences are different as well as when more number of cases are registered against the petitioner, he cannot invoke the proviso under Section 479 of BNSS seeking the relief on the ground of one third punishment even if it is considered, maximum punishment he has already underwent and the said proviso is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, since the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and multiple cases against the petitioner and more than Rs.1,544 Crores fraud has been committed that too this petitioner being a founder Chairman of the said bank."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Balakrishna M.R. while the Respondent CGSC Unnikrishnan M.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the maximum punishment is up to seven years and minimum sentence is three years under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and he was arrested on 14.02.2022 and the very observation of the Trial Court is that another case is filed and it is not a case of multiple case. He contended that the judgment of the Apex Court is very clear that BNSS is applicable. Relying on the same, he went on to contend that the provisions under the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them before 1st July, 2024 and also contend that it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon the Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail.

He went on to cite slew of other Supreme Court judgements to make submissions on various facets of bail provisions.

Contrarily, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Court has already twice rejected the bail petition having taken note of the fact that allegation of fraud invoking PML Act offence is to the tune of Rs.1,544 Crores and the same is money invested by the general public and this petitioner being the Chairman of the said Bank indulged in committing such breach of trust. He further contend that there are two cases, one under PML Act and the other case is by ED and both the trials are different.

The Court at the outset observed that the PMLA provisions cast bar on granting bail to an accused from offence under PML Act, unless he complies with the requirement thereunder, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure which is not replaced by BNSS.

"It is important to note that Section 479 of BNSS makes it clear that the benefit of first proviso to Section 479 is subject to Section 479(2) of BNSS and the Court has to take note of the third proviso, thereof, wherein investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence are in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. It is important to note that the second proviso to Section 479(1) of BNSS empowers the Court to order the continued detention of a person for a period longer than one-half of the period. All the provisions have to be read conjointly, including Sections 479(1) and 479(2). The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration since there are more than one offence against the petitioner and IPC offences are invoked and separate case is also invoked by invoking PML offence," the Court observed.

The Court also found no ground to grant bail on the ground that no trial has been commenced after due analysis.

The Petition was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Mr. K Ramakrishna vs. The Assistant Director

Click here to read/ download Order:








Karnataka High CourtBNSSBailBail ApplicationBail Petition

Sheetal Joon