Karnataka High Court
K.C.Veerendra vs By Central Bureau Of Investigation on 24 January, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9857/2016
BETWEEN:
K.C.VEERENDRA
S/O LATE CHANNABASSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT "RATHNA" OLD TOWN
OPP. VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE
CHALLAKERE - 577 522
CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, ADV.)
AND:
BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH
BENGALURU - 560 032. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.RC 26(A)/2016 OF CBI/ACB/BLR P.S.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B) R/W 420,
406, 409 AND 477(A) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as A-1 along with two others named accused and unknown officials of various Banks and public sector Banks and unknown others in the crime registered in FIR No.RC 26(A)/2016 dated 11.12.2016 in respect of the offence punishable under sections 120-B r/w sections 420, 406, 409 and 477-A of IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The facts leading to registration of the present FIR was, the residence of the petitioner was raided by the Income tax Authorities on 9.12.2016 and Rs.6.64 crores of currency notes was traced. Out of them, Rs.5.76 crores were of new currency notes of denomination Rs.2,000/-. On the information given by the Income Tax Department, -3- C.B.I has registered the present case. Subsequently the amount seized during the raid is said to have been deposited in the Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.H.S.Chandramouli submits that the petitioner is a private person and a business man. He is answerable to the Income Tax Authorities, if ever the property seized under his possession is found to be undeclared income. Being a private person, there cannot be any case against him under the provision of P.C.Act 1988. The officials of various banks who are only suspected without name are not yet identified, thus not named in the remand application. The petitioner is arrested on 11.12.2016 and was in police custody for five days. He has employed huge number of employees and his personal presence is required to manage his business and disburse the salary to his employees. When no case under the P.C. Act is made out, the prime accused having not been traced, the aligned offences under the IPC cited in the F.I.R. are not attracted against -4- him. He is ready to co-operate with the I.O. during further course of investigation and also ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed upon him. His implication in the present case since based on only suspicion that too on the registration of case by the Income Tax Authorities is without any basis and atleast for the present, he may be enlarged on bail till filing of the final report.
5. In reply, learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. C.B.I reported in (2009)8 SCC 1 submits that the very occurrence of huge currency notes in the possession of the petitioner probabalises his involvement in economic offence which cannot be lightly viewed in par with other white collar offences. Section 409 of IPC being punishable with imprisonment for life, at this stage itself no conclusion can be reached.
-5-
6. Learned counsel further submits, in similar set of circumstances, in the case of R.Venkatakrishnan Vs. CBI reported in (2009)11 SCC 737, the offence under Section 409 of IPC was made applicable to the Bank officials and private persons were held to be vicariously liable under the provisions of section 120-B along with the Bank officials. In the said case, even after filing of the final report, thrice time was extended to the prosecution to probe further.
In the given circumstance, since the investigation is at a preliminary stage and petitioner being a influential person, it is not in the interest of investigation to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Perused the case diary maintained by the I.O.
8. After the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for five days, the statement of witnesses is recorded. Out of Rs.5.76 crores of currency notes seized during the raid, they have been able to trace disbursal of currency notes of about Rs.2 lakhs from the RBI to the SBM -6- at Chitradurga. That apart, as of now, there is no clue from the records about his involvement in any of the offences under the provisions of IPC. As the case stands now, in violation of the Banking Regulation, he has successfully converted huge amount of old currency notes to new currency notes. That apart, so far, none of the public servants who are allegedly involved in the offence atleast are named in the prosecution papers. That being so, continuation of the petitioner in custody till filing of the final report may not serve any better purpose unless the prosecution is able to burst out the story of conversion of currency notes.
9. For the said reason, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.RC 26(A)/2016 of respondent-police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local sureties for -7- the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) He shall appear before the I.O. as and when called upon during further course of investigation and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court.
(iii) However, in the event of necessity to travel outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court, he can be away upto four days after furnishing details of his travel to the I.O.
(iv) He shall not approach the prosecution witnesses either directly or telephonically and shall not prevail upon them.
Any violation of the above conditions entitles the I.O. to move for cancellation of bail before this court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: