IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.6961/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R.N. SHANMUGAM S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.2776, OPPOSITE CANARA BANK BANGARPET TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114 2. SRI.NAGARAJU.M S/O R. MANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT: MANJUNATHA NILAYA 2ND MAIN, 12TH CROSS AMARAVATHINAGARA BANGARPET – 563 114 3. SRI. DILEEP KUMAR S/O R.N. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.2776, OPPOSITE CANARA BANK BANGARPET TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114 (BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET POLICE STATION NOW CEN CRIME POLICE STATION … PETITIONERS KGF, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT SRI. PRABHUGOUD. B. TUMBIGI ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.160/2019 OF BANGARPET POLICE STATION, K.G.F FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITIORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT AND SECTION 79 OF CHITS FUND ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.10.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.160/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as could be seen from the FIR is that a person by name Dr.Akulappa Shetty has lodged a complaint stating that, the complainant was a Doctor by profession. On 26.08.2016, his daughter has sold her house and gave him an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to him and in fact, the said amount was deposited with the petitioners for getting higher rate of interest at Rs.1.10 ps. Per month. As a security for repayment of the said amount along with interest, the accused persons have executed an on demand pro-note and issued a cheque. But, they have not returned the said money in spite of repeated requests and demands. It is further stated that, the said petitioners are in the habit of collecting money from many number of customers and not paying back. On the above said allegations, the police have registered a case and investigating the matter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the petitioners are running a Rice Mill in the name and style of Shanmugam Modern Rice Mill Ltd., in Bangarpet Taluk, KGF Branch and they are in the habit of receiving the amount by way of loan for the purpose of running their business and used to repay the said amount to the creditors. Therefore, in this context, the said amount has been paid by the complainant to the petitioners with an assurance that the same will be returned as early as possible. There is no allegation of whatsoever that the petitioners have been doing the financial business collecting deposits from various persons for wrongful gain. Therefore, he contends before this court that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader filed a detailed objections stating that after analyzing the magnitude by the police about the crime, they have in fact during the course of investigation collected more than 72 cheques and on-demand-pronotes from the general public and recorded the statements of more than 107 investors. They have made similar allegation against the petitioners that they have committed fraud and cheated by collecting money from the public at large and utilizing the same for their personal gain. It is also contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the investigation is still in progress. The police have to examine whether really the petitioners are doing only Rice Mill business and collecting money by way of loan and repaying the said amount or they are doing some other Finance business. It is also there in the records in spite of the objections filed that, about 77 persons have made such allegations against the petitioner. It is also available on record that, the petitioners are not only running a Rice Mill, but also they are having two other sister concerns, running in the name and style of Sri Shanmugam Modern Rice Mill. The Police have also seized certain articles from the said Private Limited companies. The allegations in the objection statement is that after collecting money in the name of the Rice Mill, they are investing the said money in the chit fund which is also run by them and they are actually cheating the people with an assurance that they would give attractive interest etc., Therefore, all the above said facts have to be investigated during the course of investigation. Some more materials are required to be investigated from the personal knowledge of the accused persons. Therefore, it is contended that the custodial investigation of the accused persons are necessary.
6. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the case papers, the police have not only relied upon the sole complaint of the complainant in this case, but also they are suo-moto investigating the real conduct of the accused persons in taking money from the public at large and they are investigating for what purpose they are collecting money and how the said money was utilized by them, or where such money has gone, and what is the magnitude of the case. When such serious allegations are made, custodial investigation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to enlarge the petitioners particularly on Anticipatory Bail, though they are designated as Managing Director, Manager and Employee of the Modern Rice Mill, their connection with other concerns/Companies have also to be un-earthed during the course of full dressed investigation. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case where the court can exercise discretion to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory Bail.
Hence, the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, dismissed.
PL* Sd/- JUDGE