Karnataka High Court
Shri. Vijay Tata vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 59
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9620 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Shri Vijay Tata,
Son of R.S.Murthy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing No.479,
HMT Layout,
Near R.T.Nagar,
Bus Depot,
R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Ashwin Goush, Advocate for
Sri.Gautam S Bharadwaj, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented by the Station House Officer,
Wilson Garden Police Station,
Hallasuru Gate Sub - Division,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
Represented by
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 01 ... Respondent
(By Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., Special Public Prosecutor)
-2-
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in CR.No.157/2018 of Wilsongarden
P.S., Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections
4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act and Section 420 of IPC and Section 76 of
Chit Fund Act.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.157/2018 registered by respondent police under Section 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Section 420 of IPC and Section 76 of Chit Fund Act, now pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.
-3-
3. The respondent has filed a detailed statement of objection opposing the petition inter alia contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertain to economic offences for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and on going through the allegations made in the FIR, it is seen that initially, the allegations attracting the offences under the provisions of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Chit Fund Act, 1982 were made only against accused No.1 and its Directors and FIR was registered only against accused No.1.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the notice issued to the petitioner herein under Sections 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. as back as in 2018 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.11.2018 which was followed by -4- another notice dated 30.11.2018 issued under Section 41(a) read with 91 of Cr.P.C., requiring the petitioner to appear to join the investigation. The endorsement made in the said notice indicates that the same was received by the petitioner herein on 01.12.2018. The petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that pursuant to the said notice, he appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined investigation on 03.12.2018. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent disputes the exact date of appearance of the petitioner, yet he does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 41(a), the petitioner herein had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 04.12.2018. Regardless of the exact date on which the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer, the fact remains that the Investigating Agency did not find it necessary either to seek custodial interrogation of the petitioner or to recover any evidence from the possession of the petitioner. That being the case, the Investigating Agency has now come up with the allegation that the huge amount -5- collected by accused No.1 from various depositors has been invested in the Company floated by the petitioner. This allegation even if accepted as true, it does not show the participation of the petitioner in the offences mentioned in the FIR. No doubt, the Investigating Agency is entitled to investigate into all the aspect of the case including the investments made by the principal accused. But for the said purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, for the reason that the alleged investments and diversification of funds by the principal accused could be ascertained through documentary evidence, which is stated to have been already in the possession of the Investigating Agency. In that view of the matter, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is well founded and in the said circumstances, it is necessary to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail to safeguard his rights and liberty. Hence, the following;
-6-
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
c. The petitioner shall produce all documents in his possession relating to the alleged investigation.
d. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation;
e. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution or tamper the -7- prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
f. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in the CID Office on the last day of every calendar month until submission of final report.
g. Petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the Investigating Agency without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM