IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 6249/2019, C/W.
CRL.P. NOS. 6500/2019, 5830/2019 AND 6045/2019 IN CRL.P. NO. 6249/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. NIJAMUDDIN. A S/O AJEEMUDDIN AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9 PARK ROAD, TASKER TOWN SHIVAJINAGARA BENGALURU CITY – 560 051 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO. 295, 1ST CROSS AL IQRA SCHOOL ROAD RAZA UL MUSATFA NAGAR DAVANAGERE – 577 001 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N. SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE COMMERCIAL STREET BENGALURU – 560 051 2. THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (IMA) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU – 560 001 RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1/STATE SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR R2/CBI) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.73/2019 (CIS NO.599/2019) OF COMMERCIAL STREET P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss 406, 409, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT.
***** IN CRL.P. NO. 6500/2019 BETWEEN:
1. AFSAR PASHA.A S/O AHMED JOHN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO 133,6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN BHAIRAPPA LAYOUT GOVINDAPURA ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE – 560 078 2. DADAPEER. I @ ASADULLA S/O IMAM SAB AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 191, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS NEAR MUBARAK MASJID MAHABOOBA NAGARA DAVANAGERE – 577 001 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION SIT (IMA) BENGALURU REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR CBI) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.73/2019 OF COMMERCIAL STREET P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss 120-B, 406, 409, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
***** IN CRL.P. NO. 5830/2019 BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HANEEF AFSAR AJEEZ S/O. MOAMMAD MOOSA AGED 59 YEARS, R/A NO.257/C 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 043 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION (SIT) COMMERCIAL STREET REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 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 P/U/Ss 406, 409, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004.
****** IN CRL.P. NO. 6045/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. SYED MUJAHID S/O. LATE SYED HASHIM AGE 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.49, MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. ACHARYA AND SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADVOCATES FOR SRI. K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION (SIT) REPRESENTED BY SPL. PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 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 P/U/Ss 406, 409, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004.
****** THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.9.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Criminal Petition No.6249/2019 is filed by accused No.2 in the Original FIR (A2 in the CBI FIR); Criminal Petition No.6500/2019 is filed by A7 and A8; Criminal Petition No.5830/2019 is filed by A21 (A22 in the CBI FIR); Criminal Petition No.6045/2019 is filed by A14 in the original FIR (A15 in the CBI FIR). As all the petitions are arising out of common crime registered originally by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as ‘SIT’ for short), (IMA) in Crime No.73/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC against the petitioners and others. Therefore, all the matters are taken up together for the purpose of avoiding repetition of facts.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
A person by name Mohammad Khalid Ahamad S/o. late Basheer Ahamad, has filed a complaint before the Commercial Street Police Station against M/s. I- Monetary Advisory Private Company Limited (hereinafter it is referred to as ‘IMA Company’ for short) and others for the alleged offences.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he knew one Mr.Mohammad Mansur khan, Managing Director of M/s. IMA Company, which was indulged in building construction etc. The said company was also doing the business of giving monthly profit by collecting huge amount of money from the customers on inducement by assuring that they will pay attractive monthly profit and also other benefits. They induced lot of people to invest their hard earned money in the said Company. Believing the words of the said person, the complainant and his family members have invested Rs.1,34,50,000/- till March 2019.
4. It is the further contention of the complainant that the said Company gave interest for some time and thereafter stopped payment. It is the case of the prosecution that, after collecting huge money from many people and after accumulation of lot of money, the said IMA Company stopped paying monthly profits to its customers. The complainant contacted the Managing Director of IMA Company Mohammad Mansoor Ali Khan–A1 and A. Nijamuddin-A2, Nasir Hussain-A3 and they said that there was some problem in repaying the money. When the matter reached climax, the Managing Director, Mr. Mohammad Mansoor Ali Khan (A1) left the country with huge amount, and cheated the people including the complainant. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the Company represented by the said Mohammad Mansoor Ali Khan and the enormity of the allegations and also huge amount being collected, the team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police called as Special Investigation Team ‘SIT’ for IMA, has been constituted and it investigated the alleged offences and invoked the provisions of Section 120B read with Section 34 and also Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KPIDFE Act’) in addition to the offence u/ss.406, 409 and 420 of IPC.
5. During the course of investigation, the police found as many as 60,000 depositors and found involvement of more than Rs.1,410 crores of huge collection of money by the said company. The Managing Director and other Directors and Conspirators have induced lot of people to invest money and from that they have acquired lot of properties in their names and also in the names of their family members by deceiving more than 60,000 people.
6. Though the SIT has filed initially a charge sheet against many number of persons, but considering the involvement of huge number of depositors in the said company and also considering the nature of allegations and the gravity of the offences alleged, the matter is handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to ‘CBI’ for short) and in fact, the CBI has registered FIR and further investigating the matter for the present.
7. In this background, the petitioners who are all involved in the above said case, as per the allegations made in the preliminary charge sheet and as well as in the FIR, who are already arrested and are in Judicial Custody, have moved the Trial Court for grant of bail and the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru under various orders rejected some of the bail petitions. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court.
8. Since specific roles have been assigned to the above said petitioners/accused, it is just and necessary for this court to consider the petitions individually filed by the petitioners/accused herein for the purpose of ascertaining their exact role and to consider whether they are required for further custodial investigation and whether any strong prima facie case has been made out against them so as to reject their respective bail petitions even u/s.439 of Cr.PC., 9. Before adverting to the facts which are relevant to consider the individual bail petitions of the petitioners/accused it is just and necessary for this court to bear in mind that, in criminal cases, the harbinger for granting or refusing bail if a strong prima facie case is against the accused is made out, then the court has to consider the other relevant factors with regard to the availability of the accused and their status in the society and their connections with other persons and whether they are ready and willing to offer substantial surety for their release from the jail. Only if prima facie case is made out, all the other important aspects have to be taken into consideration by the court. Conversely, if there is no prima facie case made out, on analyzing the role of the accused as per the allegation and the materials collected during the course of investigation, then as a matter of right, such accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bearing in mind the above said principles, now let me consider the case of the petitioners individually.
10. IN CRL. P. No. 6249/2019 - In this case, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the objection statement and as well as in the petition filed by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was a share broker and he joined Accused No.1- Mohd. Mansoor Ali Khan, the M.D. of IMA Group of Companies in the year 2015 as an Operational Manager and he was assigned with such responsibility and he has actively participated in assisting the 1st Accused in bullion trading. The petitioner was later became one of the Directors of the said IMA Company and he also became a Committee Member in IMA Credit Co-operative Society. He being in the said position, it is alleged that, the petitioner knew all the financial nuances of the Company. Therefore, in connivance with the other accused, he contacted the public servants, negotiated with them, paid bribes to them and has successfully obtained favourable reports from the public servants to continue the business activities of IMA Group of Companies. The petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility to manage purchasing of properties in the name of IMA Group of companies, as a director of the Company. Therefore, it is contended that, he was in connivance with the prime accused No.1- Mohammed Mansoor Ali Khan involved in the larger conspiracy of laundering money of public at large. Therefore, it is contended that, in fact, on the basis of the above said allegations, he has been preliminarily charge sheeted.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A2) contended that, initially he was working as an Operational Manager and as a Director, he is not concerned with any financial matters and absolutely there is no recovery from him. He is only an employee and he was getting salary for his work. Of course, it is admitted that he got NOC from the Government Officials. It is stated that those Government officials have already been released on bail. Therefore, there is no impediment for this court to release the petitioner (A2) on bail.
12. The materials available on record disclose that, this petitioner (A2) was actually acting directly under the nose of Mohd. Mansoor Ali Khan (A1), who is the king-pin in establishing the IMA Group of Companies. It is also alleged that, as per the instructions of the said accused, he has contacted M/s. Legacy Builders at Bengaluru and made arrangements for delivery of 1.50 crores for registration of property by Sri. B.M. Vijay Shankar (A.19) through one Sri. Chand Pasha, who is one of the employees of IMA Company. Subsequently, it is alleged that, he was instrumental in delivering and paying 2.50 crores to various Government Officials for the purpose of getting favourable reports and decisions in favour of IMA Company. The statement of witnesses ie. Mr. Javid K. and Mr. K. Chandpasha G. Adoni and Sri. Tazimullah Sharief, which was relied upon by the prosecution stating that there is some material to show involvement of this accused in misappropriating some IMA funds, as alleged. Therefore the point that, when he was a Director or Operational Manager, whether it was well within his knowledge about all the illegal activities of the Company headed by A1-Mohd. Mansoor Ali Khan and he is also involved in siphoning money of the Public at large, has to be gone in detail by the CBI, which has taken over the investigation. Therefore, as contended by the Special P.P. appearing for the CBI, he is the main conspirator and he is very much required for further investigation. Hence, all these aspects have to be unearthed to show that, he is the person who was having knowledge of the entire transactions of the company, as he had been working as an Operational Manager and he being an active director, he was assaigned with some specific role and as such, he was looking after various schemes of the company.
13. Looking from the above said circumstances, as the investigation is still in progress and the CBI has taken over the investigation, it requires the presence of the accused for further investigation. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Therefore, considering the huge magnitude and economic imbalance that was sought to be created, all the said aspects have to be unearthed during the course of investigation. Therefore, till filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Of course, after filing of the final report, the petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Court for grant of bail. In such an eventuality, the concerned court has to consider such application to be filed by the petitioner on merits, as expeditiously as possible, after considering the materials available on record at that stage.
14. IN CRL. P. NO.6500/2019 - In this case, the petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 7 & 8. It is the case of the prosecution and it is also admitted by the petitioners that, the 1st petitioner (A7) joined as an employee of the IMA Company in the month of April 2014 and the 2nd petitioner (A8) also joined the said company as an employee in the month of April 2015 and they were discharging their respective duties assigned to them by the company to them. It is also an undisputed fact that the 1st and 2nd petitioners became the directors of the company on 30.12.2014 to 28.09.2018 respectively. The 1st petitioner was incharge of the finance of the company and he was maintaining the accounts as an Accounts Assistant and also after becoming Director, he was placed in charge of the Accounts Branch. But, he is not indulged in or he is not responsible for any transactions that have been taken place between Accused No.1 and the customers. There is no allegation of any misuse of any funds and there is no such recovery from him. The 2nd petitioner though alleged to have purchased some properties at Davangere, it was exclusively purchased by him.
15. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that, the petitioners/accused have voluntarily surrendered before the court and they were interrogated by the police and investigation has already been completed against them and except the said allegations, at this stage, absolutely there are no materials against them to show as to how they were involved in duping or cheating the customers of IMA Company.
16. Per contra, the materials available on record show that the 2nd petitioner (A7) though joined as an employee of the IMA Company, he was looking after the accounts and there is serious allegation that he manipulated the accounts, but it is the allegation that, in order to help the company, knowing fully well that the said amounts which were deposited by the customers have been siphoned out by the said Mohammed Mansoor Ali Khan (A1), without disclosing the same, he facilitated Accused No.1 to do such an act. It is further alleged that the 2nd petitioner (A8) has purchased many number of benami properties at Davangere and the entire amount has been invested by Accused No.1 and the properties were also purchased in the name of Accused No.1.
17. In the above said facts and circumstances, the CBI has sought for further investigation in so far as these petitioners are concerned stating that, during the course of investigation, the conspiracy between Accused No.1 and these petitioners have to be unearthed to establish the larger conspiracy. Therefore, the bail petition requires to be rejected till completion of the investigation by the CBI. Some documents are produced before the court to show that Accused No.1 purchased 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 19/1 situated at Madikal Hobli, Madinayakanalli Village, Chikballapur Taluk from one Santhosh Levis in the name of one Dadapeer Imamsab @ Asadulla (A8) and the amount was funded by Accused No.1. Again another property of 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No.98/2 of Daddabathi Village, Davangere from one Nasir Ahamad (A3) for Rs.55,00,000/- which was also funded by Accused No.1.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, when the petitioners (A7 & A8) being the directors and particularly they were entrusted with the work of looking after the accounts and when there are serious allegations that they have manipulated the accounts and purchased the property, as benami persons, funded by Accused No.1, as rightly contended by the CBI, the further investigation is required. Therefore, in my opinion, when the petitioners (A7 & A8) have an active role in the IMA Company’s financial transactions as noted above, till the further investigation is conducted and charge sheet or the final report is submitted by the CBI, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
19. CRL.P. NO. 5830/2019 - The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.21 in the original FIR (Accused No.22 in the CBI FIR). The case of the prosecution against this petitioner/accused as depicted in the objection statement at paragraph-7 is that the petitioner is an Imam at Masjid in Shivajinagar at Bengaluru. The petitioner was having lot of influence on the public at large, particularly the Muslim Community. In order to have wrongful gain, the petitioner joined hands with Mohammed Mansoor Ali Khan (A1), the master-mind and other Directors of IMA company and induced lot of people belonged to Muslim Community to invest/deposit money in IMA company. It is alleged that in consideration of the same, the petitioner has received a house at HBR Layout worth Rs.3.00 crores from the 1st accused and he has also participated in the larger conspiracy of defrauding the general public.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, earlier on the basis of the letter dated 18.01.2019 addressed by the Inspector General of Police (CID), to the District Commissioner on 18.01.2019, a clean chit was given to this petitioner and there was absolutely no allegations against this man and even against the company, therefore, there is no case made-out for any further investigation. During the course of arguments, though it is admitted that the petitioner has received some money as gifts and donations, it was towards the religious purposes only and he has not received any amount for the purpose of inducing any people for to invest their money in IMA Company. It is submitted that, petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2019 and since then he is in judicial custody. There is no case initiated against him under the Pubic Money Laundering Act (PML Act). Therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
21. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that, charge sheet is not yet filed against this petitioner; He is a very influential person and he entered into a larger conspiracy with Accused No.1 for his wrongful gain; Further investigation is required to be made so far as this petitioner is concerned; Some materials are also placed before the Court to show that, he purchased a house bearing No.256/C on 12.11.2017 situated at 1st Stage, 2nd Block, HBR Layout, Bengaluru from one Sri. Mohammed Arbaaz Merchant, resident of Pillanna Garden, Bengaluru for Rs.1,05,00,000/-. The said amount was paid from the accounts of IMA Group of Entities. The statements of one Guru Raghavendra, the Senior Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar and one Mohd. Abraaz the previous owner of the property, were recorded by the Investigating Agency corroborates the fact that one Mohd. Arbaaz, Merchant sold the property in favour of Mohd. Haneef Afsar Azeezi (A22)l; The statement of accounts and Vouchers of HDFC Bank, Infantry Road Branch at Bengaluru, tentatively establish that, the sale consideration has been paid from the Account of IMA Group of Entities. It is also alleged that Mohd. Abraaz has paid lot of money to this man by way of gift and donations. The aspects that, ‘whether in order to falsely implicate this man the said things are manipulated’, has to be tested during the course of full investigation. It is argued that the Inspector General of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, who have acted upon the letter dated 18.01.2019 are also the accused persons in this case, where CBI is also investigating them in order to ascertain their role in the said alleged act. The gifts and donations stated to have been received by this man have also to be examined and verified by the CBI to ascertain whether they are received in consideration of the act of the petitioner to induce the community people to invest their hard-earned money in IMA Company and whether he had any conspiracy with Accused No.1 in that regard.
22. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances, as the CBI intends to interrogate this petitioner/accused and to ascertain all the above said factors and in view of the petitioner is having lot of influence in the community and the public at large, it is not proper for this Court to release him on bail. Of course, after filing of the final report by the CBI, the petitioner can move the court for grant of bail. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
23. CRL.P. NO. 6045/2019 - In the original records, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.14 (Accused No.16 as per the CBI FIR). It is the case of the prosecution that, this petitioner is a Corporator of BBMP and he is a highly influential person, and he had fabricated false documents showing that, he has sold his small portion of the property measuring 1800 sq.ft. situate at Hassan in favour of the 3rd accused, who is one of the Directors of IMA Company for a huge sum of Rs.2.00 crores. It is also the case of the prosecution that, this petitioner knowing fully well that money being paid by the 3rd accused is not towards the sale consideration and that money being paid by the 3rd accused is a deposit collected from the depositors/investors, he accepted the said money to influence the politicians in order to support the IMA company to continue its illegal activities without any hindrance. Therefore, he has also hatched a conspiracy with Accused No.1-Mohammed Mansoor Ali Khan to help him to collect huge deposits from the customers and misutilise the same.
24. Sri. B.V. Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, it is only the allegation that, he actually sold his properties to one of the directors of IMA Company for a sale consideration more than the market value. That can be ascertained from the concerned Sub-Registrar and the Registrar of Stamps in order to ascertain whether the said consideration amount exceeds the actual market value of the property. In fact, the allegation against this petitioner that, ‘he helped Accused No.1 to go to foreign country’, is not supported by any materials, except that he was found in the Air Port at that point of time. It is also submitted that, since 12.07.2019 the petitioner has been in judicial custody and he has already been interrogated and preliminarily charge sheet has already been filed against him. It is also submitted that Accused Nos. 14, 16 to 18 and 24 who are the Government Officials have already been released on bail. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
25. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, this petitioner is instrumental for distribution of payment to politicians and Government Officials and in fact he is also required for further investigation.
26. Looking to the above said factual aspects that, the petitioner has been arrested and the documents appears to have already been collected with reference to the sale of his property to Accused No.3, who is one of the Directors of IMA Company. The remaining investigation can be done by means of ascertaining from the competent authority as to whether the said property was sold with huge difference of amount between the actual market value and the sale consideration paid under the said documents. Sofaras the fact that inducing community people to invest money is concerned, it is not supported by any materials at this stage, except such allegations made against him. Even considering that, he was found in the Air Port on that day, on which day Accused No.1 fled away to foreign country, it cannot be presumed that he helped Accused No.1 to go out of the country. The allegations against this petitioner is that, this petitioner helped Accused No.1 by bribing the Government Officials i.e., A-14 to A-18 and A-24 for the purpose of keeping themselves quiet or issue necessary assistance to the IMA Company to continue its illegal activities without any hindrance is also not supported by any materials. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the public servants viz., A14, A18 and A24, who were stated to have been involved in this case, were already released on bail by the trial Court itself, is not disputed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/CBI.
27. Apart from the above, some materials are also placed before the Court to show that the petitioner’s mother is not well and she is suffering from severe ailment, and a medical certificate is also produced to that effect. Therefore, on over-all looking to the materials on record the allegation against this petitioner is that, he has sold his property to the IMA Company for excessive consideration amount. Except that, it appears the other allegations have to be proved during the course of full-dressed trial. As investigation appears to have been concluded so far as this petitioner is concerned, merely because he is required for further investigation, is not a ground to decline bail to him. Of course, some conditions can be imposed to the petitioner in order to enable the CBI to further investigate and interrogate him in the matter. Therefore, with this observation, I am of the opinion that, petitioner (A14) is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
28. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, I pass the following,-
ORDER i) The Criminal Petition Nos. 6249/2019, 6500/2019 and 5830/2019 are hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that after investigation and filing of the final report by the Respondent-Investigating Agency or CBI, the petitioners in the said petitions are at liberty to move the concerned trial Court for grant of bail and in such an eventuality, the trial Court shall consider their bail petitions and dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, without unnecessary delay.
ii) The Criminal Petition No. 6045/2019 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-Syed Mujahid A-14 (A15 as per CBI Charge Sheet) shall be released on bail in connection with Crime/FIR No.73/2019 of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru City, later which was registered by the CBI in RC No.14(A)/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w. 120(B) of IPC and also under Section 9 of the ‘KPIDFE Act’, subject to the following conditions;
a) The Petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
b) The Petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
c) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation, recovery or for any other purposes.
d) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all future dates of hearing, unless prevented by any genuine cause and/or exempted by the Court.
e) Petitioner shall not leave the Country-India without prior permission of the trial Court during the pendency of the investigation or trial.
f) Petitioner shall mark his respective attendance once in 15 days before the concerned Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the final report is submitted by the Respondent- Investigating Agency/CBI.
PL/KGR* Sd/- JUDGE