The Karnataka High Court rejected the bail plea of ​​73-year-old K Ramakrishna, former chairman of Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha and Sri Guru Sarvabhauma Souhanda Credit Co-operative Ltd, registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act money, for the alleged fraud. bank to the tune of Rs.1,553 Crores by creating fictitious documents and granting loan in favor of fictitious persons.

Ramakrishna, the petitioner, approached the trial court seeking relief from bail citing Section 479(1) of the BNSS, 2023 and also on the ground that there is delay in the trial and the trial has not yet commenced and he was in custody. from two years seven months. He later approached the high court in a third bail plea.

The high court said that the petitioner could not invoke the provision of section 479 BNSS on the ground of one-third of the punishment suffered, adding that it was not applicable in the facts of the case as several cases were registered against him.

For context, Section 479 (1) of the BNSS provides that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under the Sanhita, of an offense under any law (not being an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been specified as one of the punishments provided by that law) has been subjected to imprisonment for a term extending to half the maximum term of imprisonment provided for that offense under the law respectively, he should be released by the court on bail.

Justice HP Sandesh in his order observed that Section 479 of the BNSS makes it clear that the benefit of the first proviso to Section 479 is subject to Section 479(2) of the BNSS and the Court must take note of the third proviso thereof, wherein the inquiry, investigation or trial in multiple crimes are in multiple pending cases against a person, he will not be released on bail by the court. The second proviso to Section 479(1) of the BNSS empowers the Court to order the continued detention of a person for more than half the period.

Then he said, “All the provisions must be read together, including sections 479(1) and 479(2). The trial court also considered this fact as there is more than one offense against the petitioner and IPC offenses are alleged and a separate case is also raised by invoking the offense of PML.“.

It said that the Court must take note of the fact that the petitioner is the founder of the said bank and the allegation against him is that Rs 1,544 crore is being misused by creating bogus and bogus deposits.

“Especially considered that 882.85 lei was sanctioned only for 24 major beneficiaries and a specific allegation is made that this petitioner is the architect of the fraud and this fact has been taken into consideration by this court twice and The Apex Court also dismissed the SLP. (Crl.) No. 8032/2022 from the order of 16.09.2022,” the court observed.

It also stated that the other case registered against the petitioner is for offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B read with 34 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Institutions Act.

The court held “When the offenses are different, as well as when several cases are registered against the petitioner, he cannot invoke the provision of Section 479 of the BNSS to seek relief on the ground of a third sentence, even if it is considered, the maximum sentence he has already. suffered, and the said condition is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offense and the multiple cases against the petitioner and more so that he committed a fraud of Rs.1,544. Crores and this petitioner being a founder chairman of the said bank.“.

Background

Counsel for the petitioner, maximum punishment is up to seven years and minimum punishment is three years under section 5 of PMLA. It was submitted that the trial court’s observation was that another case is being prepared and it is not a multiple case. It was argued that the trial court’s reasons are not correct.

The trust was placed at the order of the Apex Court in written application (civil) no. 406/2013, in Rehumane conditions in 1382 prisons, where the immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS was directed, requesting the Superintendents of Prisons across the country, wherever the accused persons are held in judicial custody, to process their applications to the concerned courts after completing a half/ one-third, as the case may be, of the period provided for in subsection (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail.

However, the prosecution opposed the plea contending that this court has rejected the bail plea twice, noting that the charge of fraud invoking the offense of PMLA is Rs 1,544 crore and so is the money invested by the general public and this . the petitioner being the president of the said bank indulged in committing such a breach of trust.

Moreover, there are two cases, one is under PML Act and the other case is by ED and both the processes are different. Therefore, the Court has rightly concluded that Section 479(1) of the BNSS is not applicable in the present case, the prosecution said. It was further argued that the court has to take note of the gravity of the offense and the very proviso to Section 479(1) of the BNSS is not applicable to the present case.

Finding

The court also observed that under Section 531 of the BNSS, there is a saving clause while repealing the Cr.PC and in respect of the applicability of the old law. He said that when there is a bailout clause, the question of invoking the provision of the new law is not applicable and while rejecting the bail application, the Tribunal took note of the same and discussed the same in detail.

The high court stated that it finds no reason to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that no trial has been instituted.

Noting that the trial court had begun in the other case, the court said: “Merely because he is in custody for the last two years, seven months cannot be a reason to extend the petitioner on bail when the offense of PML is alleged and the charges leveled against him are of committing a fraud to the tune of Rs 1,553 crore by creating documents fictitious and granting. the loan in favor of fictitious persons, in particular 24 persons and 928 lei was embezzled.”

Thus, he rejected the request.

Case Title: K Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Balkrishna MR

Counsel for the Respondent: CGC Unnikrishnan M

Reference No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9930/2024

Click here to read/download the order