Karnataka High Court
B. K. Praveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9919/2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10100/2022,
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10181/2022,
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10318/2022,
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10364/2022,
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10428/2022,
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10477/2022
IN CRL.P.No.9919/2022:
BETWEEN:
B.K. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O B.M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O.NO.99
BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE POST
B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-83
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP,
SRI. GOUTAM S., BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
2
APPLICANT/INFORMANT HAS ASSISTED ROSECUTION)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF ATTIBELE P.S.,
BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(A), 7(C)
OF P.C ACT AND SEC.420, 421, 423, 424, 120B, 465, 467,
468, 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL.
*****
IN CRL.P.No.10100/2022:
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA B.S.
S/O LATE SONNALIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
VIDYARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU-560 097
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP A/W,
SRI.VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADV. FOR DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF
ATTIBELE P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(A), 7(C) OF P.C ACT AND SEC.420, 421, 423, 424,
120B, 465, 467, 468, 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
RURAL.
3
*****
IN CRL.P.No.10181/2022:
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAMOHAN S/O J M MUNIRAJULU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O NO.432, MMR BUILDING
NAIDU LAYOUT, SHANTIPURA VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF
ATTIBELE P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(A) AND 7(C) OF P.C ACT 1988 AND SEC.420, 423,
424, 120-B, 149, 421, 465, 467 AND 468 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL.
******
IN CRL.P.No.10318/2022:
BETWEEN:
B.K. ANIL KUMAR
S/O B.M. KRISHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.99, BHUVANESHWARI NILAYA
BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE POST
4
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 068
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE
BY ATTIBELE POLICE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF
ATTIBELE P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(A) AND 7(C) OF P.C ACT 1988 AND SEC.420, 423,
424, 120-B, 149, 421, 465, 467 AND 468 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
******
IN CRL.P.No.10364/2022:
BETWEEN:
PRUTHVIN .G S/O GOPAL .K
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O NO.2189, 3RD CROSS
KUVEMPU NAGAR, VIJINAPURA
BENGALURU-560 016
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
5
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ASSISTED PROSECUTION)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF
ATTIBELE P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(A) AND 7(C) OF P.C ACT 1988 AND SEC.420, 423,
424, 120-B, 149, 421, 465, 467 AND 468 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL.
*******
IN CRL.P.No.10428/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVAPUTRA TANGA
S/O LATE. TIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
THE THEN SENIOR SUB-REGISTER ANEKAL
NOW WORKING AS SENIOR
SUB-REGISTER AT ATTIBELE
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DISTRICT COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
6
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF ATTIBELE P.S.,
BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 421, 423,
424, 120-B, 465, AND 468 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 7(A)
AND 7(C) OF P.C ACT 1988 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT.
*******
IN CRL.P.No.10477/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVAS D.N
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC: S.D.A IN THE OFFICE OF
SUB-REGISTER, ANEKAL
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
REP. BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DISTRICT COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W
SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.356/2022 OF ATTIBELE P.S.,
BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 421, 423,
424, 120-B, 465, 468 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 7(A) AND
7(C) OF P.C ACT 1988 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT.
7
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.11.2022, COMING ON
FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition Nos. 9919/2022, 10428/2022 and 10477/2022 are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 13, 7 & 4 seeking anticipatory bail, while the Petition Nos. 10100/2022, 10181/2022, 10318/2022 and 10364/2022 are filed by Accused Nos. 1, 3, 11 & 5 respectively under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking Regular bail.
2. Since all these petitions are pertaining to the same crime i.e., Crime No.356/2022 of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District, they are heard together and common order is being passed.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Mr. Sreedhar S., on 20.09.2022, the respondent- Attibele police have registered Crime No.356/2022 for 8 the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) and 7(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act' and Sections 420, 421, 423, 424, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 r/w 149 of IPC.
4. It is alleged in the complaint that, CBI and ED had undertaken investigation against the PACL Company in respect of Money Laundering Charges and Public Fraud and the matter went up to Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further alleged that the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 13301/2015 [Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. SEBI] vide order Dated 02.02.2016 has directed the SEBI to constitute a committee headed by Hon'ble Justice R.M. Lodha, the Former CJI to enquire into the matter for disbursal of the land properties purchased by the PACL Company, so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, on the allegation of Fraud of Money Laundering amounting to Rs.49,100 Crores. It is alleged that by an interim order dated 25.07.2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court has restrained the PACL Company and its Directors/promoters/agents/ 9 employees/group/associated companies of PACL etc., from alienating/creating any third party interest in respect of the properties owned or having any interest of the said Company. It is also alleged that the said direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court was communicated to all the State Inspector General of Registrars ('IGR' for short) and in turn, the IGR of Karnataka has communicated the same to the Deputy Commissioners of Districts and Tahsildar of all the Taluk Office and in pursuance of the said order, the Tahsildar of Anekal, Bengaluru, has communicated the interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court to Sub-Registrar of Anekal and brought the same to the notice of all the concerned Sub-Registrars. It is further asserted that, the IGR Bengaluru has addressed a letter to all the District Registrars in this regard to co-ordinate as per letters dated 30.08.2016 and 30.05.2017. It is alleged in the complaint that prohibition order issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and constitution of Justice Lodha Committee was within the public domain. But, in spite 10 of that the accused/petitioners have conspired with each other and have created documents regarding alienation of the properties in order to defraud the investors so as to nullify the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint and in that context, the crime came to be registered.
5. During the course of investigation, Accused No.1-Manjunath B.S., Accused No.3-Chandramohan, Accused No.5-Pruthvin G., and Accused No.11-B.K. Anil Kumar were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, they are seeking regular bail by moving criminal petitions, while other accused viz., Accused No.13-B.K.Praveen Kumar, Accused No.7- Shivaputra Tanga and Accused No.4-Srinivasa D.N., are seeking anticipatory bail.
6. Accused No.13-B.K. Praveen Kumar claims to be an advocate, while Accused Nos. 4 and 7 are the Sub Registrar and Second Division Assistants respectively working in the Sub-Registrar Office. 11
7. Heard arguments advanced by Sri. C.H. Jadhav on behalf of Sri. Chethan Jadhav; Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. Vijetha R. Naik; Sri. S. Balakrishnan and Sri. Praveen Kumar K.S., learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners; and Sri. Kiran S. Javali, the learned SPP-I appearing along with Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Sri. Goutam S. Bharadwaj and Sri. Vinay Kuttappa, learned Advocates for the applicant/defacto complainant/Informant have assisted the prosecution. Perused the records.
8. The learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are not in picture earlier; The purchasers are bona fide purchasers as Intimation regarding prohibition was issued subsequently and prior to intimation itself they purchased it; The purchasers claim that they are bona fide purchasers, while Registrars assert that they have no knowledge and they have discharged their duty of registration and in fact their act helped the State in 12 mobilizing the revenue. It is also contended that earlier letters only disclose that the particulars were sought and no prohibitory order was served and further it is alleged that Accused No.11 has no way concerned and he has only generated K2 Challan and he has no role in alleged transactions. According to the petitioners, the communication was on 22.09.2022 after registration of the sale deeds, as the sale deeds were executed in the month of January 2022 itself. It is also alleged that the name of Accused No.13 was not found in the complaint and Accused Nos. 11 to 13 are the brothers. Hence, it is contended that, no specific case is made- out by the prosecution and there is no evidence regarding conspiracy as alleged against Accused No.1.
9. It is further contended that the allegations of fabrication and conspiracy as against Accused No.1 are not substantiated and no resolution copies were produced. It is also contended that Accused No.1 has not at all participated in any of the transactions and 13 there is no nexus between him and alleged transactions and as such, it is prayed for admitting the petitioners on anticipatory bail and regular bail, as prayed.
10. Per contra, the learned SPP has seriously opposed the bail petition contending that 84 properties were identified in the State and the Committee has intimated the same to the Inspector General of Registrars in 2017 itself bringing to his notice regarding the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Accused No.1 by colluding with Accused Nos. 2 & 3 has sold the properties to Accused Nos.3 & 5 and Accused Nos. 7 & 14 being the Registrars having knowledge regarding the prohibition for registration or creation of charge, as the same was feeded in the computer, but however they have registered the deeds which disclose their mala fide intention. It is contended that intimation was entered in the system and mobile seized from Accused No.1 discloses WhatsApp messages regarding conspiracy. It is further 14 asserted that, though it is alleged that the sale transaction was effected, the Bank statement discloses that no such transaction has taken place and TDS though alleged to have deducted not credited to the Government and hence, it is evident that the transactions are not bona fide. He would also contend that the sale in favour of Accused No.3 discloses that only false figures have been mentioned, as payment details of 2011 sale deeds were simply entered there, which clearly establish that no such transaction is effected and it is only with an intention to de-fraud the investors and to nullify the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would also contend that, the matter is still at the stage of investigation and if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they being in influential positions, they are likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petitions.
11. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.10181/2022 and 10364/2022 are 15 arraigned as Accused Nos. 3 & 5 respectively and they are purchasers. Admittedly, Accused No.5 is the brother-in-law of Accused Nos. 11 to 13. It is submitted that Accused No.12 has obtained stay regarding the proceedings against him. Accused Nos. 3 & 5 have purchased the property from M/s. Woods Ville Project Private Limited. Interestingly, on perusal of the sale deed of Accused No.3., it is evident that the payment as referred in 2011 sale deed was simply referred and the learned SPP has very seriously objected this conduct contending that they are not only played fraud on the investors, but also played fraud with the State as no payments have been made under these transaction. It is asserted that, there cannot be the same DDs/Cheques pertaining to 2011 and 2022 transactions, which clearly explain these things in volume and the intention of Accused No.3. Further, Accused No.5 has also purchased certain properties under Sale Deed dated 10.01.2022. But, there is a simple assertion in the sale deed regarding payment 16 through RTGS and Demand Draft. But, there is no reference as to the RTGS was done pertaining to which Bank or there is no reference of Demand Draft pertaining to bank account. The vague number with RTGS details are mentioned without any reference of the Bank and it is a specific assertion of the learned SPP-I that, it would be difficult for the Investigating Agency to counter-check the details and that itself discloses the intention of the petitioners. Considering these aspects, prima facie there is material evidence as against Accused Nos. 3 and 5, who are the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.10181/2022 and 10364/2022 and considering their involvement in the crime, question of granting bail to them, does not arise at all.
12. Accused Nos. 7 & 4 are working as Sub-
Registrars and Second Division Assistant respectively and Accused no.4 was in-charge Sub-Registrar during one transaction. All along it is contended that, intimation was subsequent to sale and in this regard, correspondences have been relied by the counsels for 17 the petitioners. But, the letter addressed by Justice Lodha Committee dated 30.04.2017 itself discloses that there was a specific intimation to all the Inspector General of Registrar regarding Apex Court's order prohibiting alienation or creating charge and further in 2017 itself, the Inspector General of Registration has issued a memorandum dated 07.06.2017. These documents are produced by the learned SPP-I for perusal and these documents disclose that in 2017 itself, there was a specific reference regarding the order. Apart from that, it is specifically asserted by the prosecution that the same was also fed in the computer and in spite of the said observation and intimation, Accused Nos. 4 & 7 acted high-handedly. Though it is argued that they are discharging their duty and there was no intimation, but the documents produced by the prosecution falsify this contention. Though they claim that they generated revenue to the State it cannot be accepted, as the transactions itself disclose that, no consideration has been passed and it 18 is a fake transaction only to over-come the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Such things cannot be taken in a casual way and they are required to be dealt in accordance with law. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 7 are working in the Department and if they are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of they tampering the prosecution witnesses and their personal interrogation is also necessary and under such circumstances, question of admitting them on bail does not arise at all. Hence, Criminal Petition No.10428/2022 filed by petitioner/Accused No.7 and Criminal Petition No.10477/2022 filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 does not survive for consideration and needs to be rejected.
13. Subsequently, when the matter was reserved for orders, the learned HCGP has filed two memos and submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.7 in Criminal Petition No.10428/2022 and the petitioner/Accused No.4 in Criminal Petition No.10477/2022, who have filed the said petitions 19 seeking anticipatory bail, are already arrested and were remanded to judicial custody, and in support of his submission, the learned HCGP has also produced copies of remand yadi. Therefore, when the petitioners/Accused Nos. 7 & 4 in Criminal Petition Nos.10428/2022 and 10477/2022 respectively are already arrested, then question of considering their bail petition does not arise at all and their bail petitions become infructuous and on this ground also the petitions need to be dismissed.
14. The allegations against Accused No.1 is that, he has conspired with other accused. The records all along disclose that he was with the Company all along and the company has paid more than 21.00 Crores to him and there were certain transactions between Accused No.1 and the PACL Company, which is evident from the records produced by the prosecution. The mobile was seized from him and it discloses that he had involved in certain exchange of WhatsApp messages with other accused. But on 20 perusal of entire records, it is evident that certain CPU/DVRs were seized from the custody of Accused No.1. But, what is the out-come of these documents is not at all forthcoming. Admittedly, Accused No.1 is neither the mediator nor transactor regarding the present transactions. He was in police custody for nearly four days, but no recovery is forthcoming in respect of the present case. He is neither purchaser nor seller, or he drafted the sale deeds nor he is a mediator. No doubt, there are serious allegations regarding fabrication of resolutions, but however they were not placed before the Court. But, prima facie there is no nexus forthcoming between the present petitioner/Accused No.1 with the alleged transactions. Further, Accused No.1 is in custody and his presence is no more required by the Investigating Agency. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any other clinching material as against him, question of detaining him in custody does not arise at all and as such, in my considered opinion, he can be admitted on bail, but 21 with certain conditions, with a liberty to the prosecution to move the Court for cancellation of bail, if they are able to secure any other material evidence against him.
15. Accused Nos. 11 & 13 are the brothers and Accused No.11 has filed Criminal Petition Nos.10318/2022 seeking regular bail and Accused No.13 has filed Criminal Petition No.9919/2022 seeking anticipatory bail. The allegations against Accused No.11 are that, he has discussed regarding purchase of property with Accused Nos.12 & 13 and it is alleged that investment was made by Accused Nos. 11 to 13 on behalf of Accused No.5. Indirectly it is alleged by the prosecution that they are benami transactions. But, however the sale deed is in the name of Accused No.5 and there is no prima facie material evidence to show that the sale transactions were by Accused Nos. 11 & 13. No doubt, Accused No.11 has generated K2 Challan and it is submitted that, as Accused No.5 was unable to generate K2 Challan, on his behalf K2 22 Challan came to be generated by Accused No.11 and he paid Rs.1,75,000/- for generating K2 Challan. It is contended that merely generating K2 Challan on behalf of Accused No.5 does not amount to any offence. No doubt, at this juncture there is no material evidence to show that Accused No.11 has participated in any of the transactions except generating K2 Challan. As rightly argued, generating K2 Chellan or payment of amount on behalf of others itself is not an offence unless the mens rea is established. At this juncture, there is no material evidence and though the prosecution as relied upon certain WhatsApp messages, those are required to be established in a full-pledged trial after completion of investigation.
16. As regards petitioner/Accused No.13 i.e., Petitioner- B.K.Praveen Kumar in Criminal Petition No.9919/2022, it is simply asserted that, he was also a part of conspiracy regarding purchasing the property along with Accused Nos. 11 and 12. But, except making allegation regarding he being a part of 23 conspiracy, there is no material evidence at this juncture. Prima facie, no role is forthcoming as regards Accused No.13 and his name also does not find place in the complaint. The prosecution has implicated him only on the basis of statement made by co-accused, which is not admissible.
17. Looking to facts and circumstances of these cases, in my considered opinion, Accused No. 11 can be granted regular bail and Accused No.13 can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions with liberty to the prosecution to move the Court for cancellation of bail, in case they are able to secure any materials in this regard.
18. As regards Accused No.11, he is already in custody and his interrogation is concluded. Under these circumstances, the petitions filed by Accused Nos.1, 11 & 13 in Criminal Petition Nos. 10100/2022, 10318/2022 and 9919/2022 are need to be allowed and rest of the petitions need to be dismissed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- 24
ORDER I. Criminal Petition Nos.9919/2022 is allowed. The petitioner-B.K.Praveen Kumar/Accused No.13 is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.356/2022 of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 17(A) and 7(C) of PC Act and Sections 420,421, 423, 424, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 and 149 of IPC, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer subject to following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in the event of his surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release him on bail, as directed.
ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation and co-operate with the 25 Investigating Agency for proper investigation of the case.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on 1st and 15th day of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till submission of the final report.
II. Criminal Petition Nos.10100/2022 and 10318/2022 are allowed. The petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 & 11 are ordered to be released on regular bail in Crime No.356/2022 of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 17(A) and 7(C) of PC Act and Sections 420, 421, 423, 424, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 and 149 of IPC, on each of them executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;26
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences;
iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court;
iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they are exempted by a specific order.
v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO on 1st and 15th day of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till submission of the final report.
III. Criminal Petition Nos. 10181/2022 and 10364/2022 stand rejected.
IV. Criminal Petition Nos. 10428/2022 and 10477/2022 stand dismissed on merits as well as having become infructuous.
In view disposal of the above petitions, IA No.1/2022 filed for Interim Bail in Criminal Petition No.9919/2022 and IA No.2/2022 filed for production of documents in Criminal Petition No.10100/2022 do not 27 survive for consideration, and accordingly the said applications stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR* CT:NR