Karnataka High Court
Sri. Anand Balakrishna Appugol vs Assistant Director on 27 September, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35323
CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4287 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ANAND BALAKRISHNA APPUGOL
S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA LAXMANRAO APPUGOL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
CHAIRMAN OF SHREE KRANTIVEER SANGOLI
RAYANNA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
R/AT PLOT 2,. 1ST MAIN,
2ND STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GADILINGAPPA G.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Location: HIGH DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
COURT OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE
3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTHINAGAR TTMC, K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE-27
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L. SUNDARESAN, ASG FOR
SRI M. JAYAKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35323
CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.89/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PML ACT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and this petitioner is in custody from 5.1.2022 and also counsel would submit that he was taken to custody on 5.11.2018 in respect of the consumer case and already he has completed half of the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'PML Act') i.e. not less than three years and the same is extended up to seven years and hence, this Court has to invoke Section 436A of Cr.PC. The counsel also vehemently contend that already -3- NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023 amount and properties were also seized and though the property worth is shown as 31 crores, but attached property is more than the allegation made against him and only SR value is considered and not the market value and the very mentioning of only property is 31 crores was attached cannot be accepted and hence he may be enlarged on bail and petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
3. Per contra, Sri.L.Sundaresan, ASG appears for the respondent would vehemently contend that this Court in detail discussed the allegations made against this petitioner and he has siphoned the amount of more than 13 thousand investors money and total amount of siphoning the amount of the investors is 239 crores and also counsel would vehemently contend that under Section 45 of the PML Act the petitioner has to satisfy that he has not committed an offence and material clearly discloses that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and also separate complaint is filed and cognizance is taken and material is also collected against this petitioner and hence, he is not entitled for bail and this Court has taken gravity of the offence while dismissing the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023 earlier bail petition. The counsel also would vehemently submits that Section 436A cannot be invoked and he was taken to custody only on 5.1.2022 and not as contended by the petitioner's counsel and the same is not in connection with this crime is concerned and he is not entitled for bail.
4. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the material, this Court earlier rejected the bail petition in Criminal Petition No.3338/2022 vide order dated 24.6.2022 and also taken note of the gravity of the offence alleged against this petitioner and an allegation is made that 281.14 crores of the amount of investors was misappropriated by this petitioner and also taken note of properties are acquired in the family members and also purchased the bungalow at Belagavi for a consideration of Rs.1.50 crores and has availed loan of Rs.1 crore from Canara Bank and the petitioner has also purchased Land Rover Discovery SUV Car in the year 2016 for 1.25 crores and all materials were taken note of by this Court and also taken note of the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and also the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023 judgment in the case of MOHD.ARIF VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI 544 and also taken note of the judgment in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY reported in (2020) 14 SCC 396 and in detail discussed with the same and also taken note of the amount of Rs.250 Crores was siphoned by this petitioner and in detail discussed the material on record.
5. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel before this Court in a successive bail petition that this Court can invoke Section 436A and rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that he was taken to custody on 5.1.2022 in this case and not prior to that and though he was in custody from 5.11.2018 and the same not pertaining to this Case and admittedly the petitioner's counsel submits that the same is arising out of a case of consumer forum. When such materials are available on record, question of invoking Section 436A of Cr.PC also does not arise. The Court also while exercising the discretion take note of the gravity of the offence and though the offences are invoked under Section 406, 408, 420 of IPC in Crime No.185/2017 and separate proceedings has also initiated -6- NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023 under the PML Act and also this petitioner being the Chairman of Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna Urban Credit Society (KSRUCS) allegedly indulged in misappropriating the amount of around 239 crores and the said money is also the investors who have invested the amount of more than 13 thousand investors and also taken note of the property attached is only 31 crores and not as contended by the petitioner's counsel it is worth more than the alleged against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any changed circumstances to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. The petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke Section 45 of PML Act also and PML Act is also very clear that the petitioner has to make out the prima facie case that he has not committed the offence and material collected by the respondent is sufficient to prima facie make out a case against the petitioner and hence not a case for enlarging the petitioner on bail in a successive bail petition either invoking Section 436A and also merits as there is no changed circumstances. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 116