Accused Not To Be Released On Bail When Investigation, Inquiry or Trial In More Than One Offence Or In Multiple Cases Are Pending: Karnataka HC

The Accused had knocked the doors of the High Court with a third bail petition after his plea was rejected by the Apex Court.The petitioner had approached the Trial Court seeking the relief on different grounds invoking Section 479(1) of BNSS, 2023 and also on the ground that there was a delay in trial and he had been in custody from two years seven months.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, “ 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 took 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.”

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

The main ground urged before the Court was that the petitioner was entitled for bail under Section 479(1) of BNSS, since he was in custody from last two years seven months. The Petitioner’s Counsel submitted that maximum punishment is upto seven years and minimum sentence is three years under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the very observation of the Trial Court was that another case was filed and it was not a case of multiple case. As per the petitioner, the reasons of the Trial Court were not correct and BNSS was applicable in the present case.

The Petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Re-inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons [Writ petition (Civil) No.406/2013] and contended that the provisions under the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them before July 1, 2024.

The Court took note of the fact that the case was filed against the petitioner under Section 3 of PML Act and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act. The said provision casts 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”, the Bench said.

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner is the founder of the said Bank and the allegation against him is that Rs.1,544 Crore are misused by creating bogus and fake deposits. Out of that Rs.882.85 Crore had been sanctioned only to 24 major beneficiaries. A specific allegation was also made that the petitioner is the architect of the fraud and this fact was considered by the High Court twice. The Apex Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

The other case was registered against him under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B read with 34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act.

“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 Bench said.

The Court further asserted that under Section 531 of BNSS, there is a saving clause while repealing Cr.P.C. regarding applicability of the old Act also. It held that when there is a saving clause, the question of invoking the provision of new enactment is not applicable.

“Merely because he is in custody from past two years seven months cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when PML offence is invoked and the charges leveled against him is committing fraud to the tune of Rs.1,553 Crores by creating fictitious documents and granting loan in favour of fictitious persons, particularly 24 persons and Rs.928 Crores was misappropriated”, it said.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Mr. K. Ramakrishna V. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [Case No. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9930/2024]

Petitioners: Advocate Balakrishna M.R.

Respondents: CGSC Unnikrishnan M.

Click here to read/download Order: