IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7263/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. KHALEEMULLA JAMAL S/O. RAHMATULLA AGED 40 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO. 56 ROBERTSON ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. USMAN. P, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION INVESTIGATED BY SIT (IMA) BENGALURU – 560 001 PRESENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU ( REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.73/2019 OF COMMERCIAL STREET P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner who is arraigned as Accused No.25 [A- 22 in the Preliminary charge sheet filed by the CBI] seeking grant of bail in connection with Crime No.73/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI and perused the records.
3. Initially a crime has been registered in Crime No.73/2019 by the Commercial Street Police, Bengaluru, for the above said offences. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to the Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as ‘SIT’ for short) constituted by the State of Karnataka. However, considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of huge amount, vide notification dated 19.8.2019 issued by State of Karnataka, further investigation has been made over to the CBI. Pursuant to the same, the CBI has registered an FIR in Crime No.RC- 14(A)/2019 and took up the investigation from 30.8.2019. After preliminary enquiry and investigation, preliminary charge sheet has been filed before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 7.9.2019, wherein this petitioner has been arraigned as A-22.
4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that M/s.I Monetary Advisory Company Pvt.Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as ‘IMA’ for short] and its group of companies headed by one Mohammad Mansoor Khan, engaged in various business activities like Bullion and Trading, Construction, Education, Health Care etc., A1 Mohammad Mansoor Khan is the Managing Director of the said Company. The said Company has also established more than 18 entities at different places and started Co-operative societies and many number of firms in and around, Bengaluru. The said Company headed by the said Mohammad Mansoor Khan, indulged in collecting huge amount by way of deposits from the general public with a false assurance of making the said depositors that they would give very attractive interest and also other attractive benefits out of the said investment. The said Company came in contact with various persons who also wanted to join their hands for the illegal activities of the Company so as to make themselves wrongful gain. Therefore, with the help of so many other persons, who can make propaganda on behalf of the company, the Company has collected huge amount tuning to nearly 4000 crores with about 60,000 to 70,000 depositors after collecting money. The stake holders in the company with the clandestine intention of A1 started siphoning the amount and defeating the assurance given to the depositors, one of the customers/investors lodged a complaint making such allegations on which basis the complaint came to be lodged and investigation has been in progress.
5. In the above said context, the allegation made against the petitioner who is arraigned as A-22 is that he used to propagate IMA schemes regularly to various people in and around Malur, Kolar District. Further, it is contended that he has a Farm House at Malur Taluk by name Usman Farm House. This Farm House is used for storing cash and jewellaries of IMA group through A1. The said Farm House has a very strong bunker like structure within, which facilitated A1 to store all the cash and jewellaries so as to make use of the same subsequently for the wrongful benefit of some interested persons in the Company. It is also alleged that an Innova Crysta Vehicle with Regn. No.KA- 03/NA-1297 purchased by the IMA group was given to the petitioner and he has been using the same and the same was seized from the residence of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with A1 for commission of the said offences and facilitated A1 to siphon the entire amount and run to the foreign country. It is contended that the accused is still require for further investigation.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before this court that some of the persons who are also associated with A1 have already been released on bail. The similarly placed other accused persons who are also alleged to have been canvassed for IMA Company have been released on bail by this court. There is no cogent and convincing materials collected by the investigating agency to show that the bunker has opened by A1 in the premises of this petitioner. It is only the allegation against him which is not based on any materials. Secondly, it is contended that a Car alleged to have been given ie., Innova Crysta has not been seized from his house, but it was near the house of the petitioner. Merely because, the accused collected the people for the purpose of holding get together etc., it is not suffice to say that, he has been propaganding and canvassing the business of IMA group. It is a virtual imagination by the investigating agency. The other accused persons who are already released on bail were also made with similar allegations. Therefore, looking from any angle, there is no substantive material evidence to connect the accused to the IMA group of companies. Hence, he prayed for granting of bail.
7. The CBI has submitted a supplementary report which discloses that this present petitioner has got Farm House at Malur Taluk, Kolar which is not disputed. It is in the name of ‘Usman Farm House’. Some materials are collected by the investigating agency that the IMA Group of Company has appointed two guards for protecting the said Farm House and the salaries to those persons have been paid by the said IMA Group of Companies. It is also evident from the records that the petitioner has received huge amount of more than 68 lakhs on the guise that he has supplied bricks to the said IMA Company. Of course, there are some materials to show that some amount has been raised by means of invoice for supplying of bricks but an amount of Rs.33 lakhs was deposited by the petitioner during the investigation before Registrar City Civil Court, Bengaluru, for the reasons best known to him. If at all he has received the said amount by way of consideration for having supplied the bricks, there was no necessity to repay the said amount.
8. Though the learned counsel contended that two security guards who were watching IMA Usman Farm, their salaries have been paid by the petitioner himself but the materials collected by the CBI shows that IMA Bank accounts showed the payment of salary to the said guards. The investigation also revealed to CBI that the said Innova Crysta was provided to the petitioner was seized near the house of the accused. Though it is contended that the said Car was seized near the house of accused, but it should be un-earthed during the course of investigation, whether it was actually used by the petitioner i.e., yet to be considered by the investigating agency out of Rs.68 lakhs claimed to have taken by the petitioner, Rs.33 lakhs are only referable to supply of some bricks, therefore, what happened to the remaining amount has to be explained by IMA group. The further investigation may be helpful to the CBI to enquire into the matter as to what exactly the amount in cash and jewellary kept in the bunker alleged to have been situated in the petitioner’s Farm House and what happened to the said cash and jewellary and whether it has been shifted, if so who has actually done that; all those things are still be unearthed by the investigating agency.
9. In the light of the above said circumstances, it is not only the mere allegations made against the petitioner that he has been canvassing to the people to invest their hard earned money in the IMA group of companies, but the other materials as narrated above shows some strong connection between the petitioner and the IMA group.
Therefore, the whole truth between the petitioner and the IMA group of companies and why he has facilitated IMA Group; what is the reason whether it was for wrongful gain or not has to be investigated by the investigating agency.
10. In this context, the further investigation is said to have been in progress to examine the remaining investors/depositors in order to ascertain whether the petitioner has induced any person to invest their money for the purpose of wrongful gain and also the cash and jewellary alleged to have been kept in the bunker and whether this petitioner has shifted, if shifted to which place etc., Therefore, all these important aspects have also to be divulged by thorough investigation as claimed by the Investigating Officer.
11. The CBI which is investigating the matter is one of the well known trustworthy investigating agencies in India. Normally, unnecessarily, they will not ask for any time for investigation nor they will implicate unnecessarily any person without there being any connecting materials. Therefore, considering the trustworthiness of the CBI as well as the connecting materials placed before the court as noted above, full opportunity and free hand should be given to the investigating agency to complete the investigation and thereafter only, the court has to examine the materials collected by the investigating agency to ascertain whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail or not. Till that point of time, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that after the Investigating Agency reports to the court that it has completed the investigation so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned, petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned court for grant of bail. In that eventuality, without making unnecessary delay, the court has to dispose of the said application on its merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
PL* Sd/- JUDGE