IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7541/2019 BETWEEN:
DR. V.C. RAM MOHAN, M.SC., M.S.A., M.PHIL, PH.D., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRI. V.C.SRINIVASAN, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 208, “NIDHI APARTMENTS”, NO.40, NETAJI ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005.
(BY SRI: C.V. NAGESH SR.COUNSEL, FOR SRI: RAGHAVENDRA K., ADV.,) AND:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
...PETITIONER ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI: P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.,) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.07/2017 OF CBI/BS AND FC, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in Spl.CC.No.231/2018 pending on the file of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, for the offence under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and also Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There are as many as 8 accused arraigned in this case.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the accused Nos.6 to 8 are land owning companies who have actually mortgaged the lands belonging to them as security for the loans availed by accused No.1 company and they have also furnished Corporate Guarantee for the respective facility secured by them. Accused No.3, the present petitioner was working as a Deputy General Manager of the said Company. It is held that at the time of sanctioning of loan of Rs.90 crores at one instance and further release of loan totaling to Rs.190 crores and Rs.256.39 crores of land were distressed to the said Company and the loan has been obtained by accused No.2. The main allegations are that at the time of securing the loan, the petitioner colluding with accused Nos. 1 and 2, had obtained loan with insufficient guarantee and insufficient surety so that the bank may not be in a position to recover the said loan amount from accused Nos. 1 and 2.
4. The further allegation is that accused No.2 is in default and he has not repaid the loan amount. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
5. This Court had an occasion to go in detail about the allegations made against the petitioner and also the other accused persons. This Court has dealt in detail with the brief factual matrix of the case in the order passed in Criminal Petition No.6522/2018 and dismissed the bail petition vide order dated 20.08.2019.
6. The main observation made by this Court at the time of securing loan the accused No.2 and the present petitioner and other associated staff on the same footing as conspiracy was developed between the alleged persons. The major portion of the allegations indicates that accused No. 3 as the main person who is actually obtained loan on the instructions that to help some favoured persons which was a transactional help by accused No.3. Therefore, I have already observed that the allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 are inseparable in nature. Further, this Court has rejected the bail petition of the accused No.2 on the ground that he has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition is pending.
7. Presently, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are serious changed circumstances accrued to the benefit of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.2216/2019 has enlarged accused No.2 on bail on certain conditions. Therefore, it is the stage before this Court that when accused No.3 also stands on the same footing as that of accused No.2 on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Though formal petitions were filed by the respondent, but on perusal of the order sheet the earlier petition taken, while this Court has considered the bail petition on the similar footing and has rejected the bail petition of the accused No.2. There is no whisper with regard to the distinction between the relationship between accused Nos. 2 and 3 so as to distinguish the rejection of the bail petition.
9. For the above said reasons, I am of the opinion that as the Hon’ble Apex Court had enlarged the accused No.2 on bail, the present petitioner i.e. accused No.3 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same conditions on the ground of parity. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in Spl.CC.No.231/2018 pending on the file of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and also Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport to the custody of the Trial Court.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD