Karnataka High Court
Sri Gala Chandrashekar Gupta vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1060 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI GALA CHANDRASHEKAR GUPTA
S/O VENKATAIAHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT No.584, GROUND FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 6TH SECTOR,
H.S.R. LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 102. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY H.S.R. LAYOUT POLICE,
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN CRIME No.364/2018 OF HSR LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
2
3 TO 6 OF PRIZE CHITS AND MONEY CIRCULATION
SCHEMES (BANNING) ACT AND SECTION 9 OF
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS
IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT AND SECTION 420,
406 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and perused the records.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, a person by name Mod.Shahin Shariff has filed a report to the respondent-Police that himself and his wife have invested Rs.8,64,000/- in accused Company which promised them to pay 1 to 2% daily profit with binary and booster for 200 days out of the principal amount invested by the complainant. The accused has paid profit for a period of 10 days and thereafter they have discontinued.
3. On the basis of the said allegations, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.364/18 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4,5 and 6 of Prize 3 Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and also Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (in short `the KPID' Act) and 420, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. It is worth to note here that on similar allegations under Sec.420 of IPC and under Section 3 to 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act, 51st Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57) in Crl.Misc.No.7254/2018 has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On the similar allegations made against him, a suo motu complaint was initiated by the Police. So far as present case is concerned, on similar allegations and on the basis of FIR lodged by the said person noted above, a case has been registered by invoking Section 9 of KPID Act. Learned Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition on the ground that Section 9 invoked by the Police under the KPID Act is a bar to exercise 4 powers under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code but, very strangely, learned Sessions Judge has not looked into Section 9 of the KPID Act. Section 9 of the said Act reads as under:
"9. Fraudulent default by financial establishment:- Any financial establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, director, partner, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management or conducting of the business or affairs of such financial establishment, shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lakh of rupees and such financial establishment also shall be liable for a fine where such deposits is quantifiable in terms of money twice the amount involved in such default whichever is more:
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons recorded by the Special Court in the judgment of the Court, the imprisonment shall not 5 be less than three years and the fine shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees as against each individual and not less than one lakh of rupees against such financial establishment."
6. On plain reading of the complaint, it is evident that there are no sufficient materials in the allegations attracting the said provision. Therefore, under such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge ought to have released the petitioner on bail as he has already released on bail along with other accused on the similar allegations as noted above. For the above reason, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail with certain conditions. Hence, the following:
Order Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No..364/18 of HSR Layout Police Station for the offence punishable under Section Section 3, 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and also 6 Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (in short `the KPID' Act) and 420, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the file of respondent-Police subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(b) The petitioner shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.
(c) The petitioner shall make himself
available to the IO as and when
required.
(d) The petitioner shall also mark his
attendance once in 15 days on any
7
Sunday between 10 a.m. to 5. p.m.
before the respondent-Police for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-