Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mushtaq Rehman vs State By Thilak Nagar Ps on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1520 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUSHTAQ REHMAN,
S/O ABDUL REHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FLAT NO.103, JSJ OPAL,
4TH CROSS,
BHEL OFFICERS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560 011
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE BY THILAK NAGAR PS,
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 16 OF KARNATAKA
PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN
CRL.MISC.NO.5486/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-01) AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1
praying to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.5486/2023 by the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the anticipatory
bail petition of this appellant/accused No.1 sought in
respect of Crime No.82/2023 of Thilaknagar Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w
34 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 9 of the Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act,2004 (in short "KPIDFE Act") came to
be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused
No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, One Sri
Mohammed Zainulabuddin has filed a complaint stating
that accused No.2 approached him and introduced him to
appellant/accused No.1 and induced to invest in the
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
business of purchasing crude oil, gold, iron and steel with
a promise of high returns and therefore, complainant
borrowed personal loan from the banks and invested a
total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with appellant/accused No.1
by transferring the amount to the bank account of the
appellant/accused No.1. In the complaint it is stated that
the appellant/accused No.1 so far has paid amount of
Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant. From may-2018 he has
not received single rupee from the appellant/accused
No.1. On the basis of said complaint case came to be
registered against the appellant/accused No.1 and others
in crime No. 82/2023 of Thilaknagara Police Station for
aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused No.1
apprehending his arrest filed Crl.Misc seeking anticipatory
bail and same came to be rejected by the impugned order.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by the
appellant/accused No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1
would contend that the appellant/accused No.1 is not
financial establishment as defined under Section 2(4) of
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
KPIDFE Act. The complainant has transferred a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- to the account of Supreme Traders and the
appellant/accused No.1 is proprietor of the same. He
further submits that there is no instigation by this
appellant/accused No.1 to the complainant to invest the
money in the business. The appellant/accused No. 1 is not
carrying on financial business accepting the deposit and
paying interest or not running any sponzy scheme. The
appellant/accused No.1 is doing business and in his
business the complainant has invested money. The said
aspect does not attract Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act. The
appellant/accused No.1 is ready to cooperate with police in
the investigation. The offences alleged against
appellant/accused No.1 are not punishable either death or
life imprisonment. With this he prayed to allow the appeal
and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant/accused No.1.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the complainant has availed
loan from the bank and invested the said amount in the
account of the appellant/accused No.1. There are other
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
customers who invested in the firm of the
appellant/accused No.1. The appellant/accused No.1 did
not return the amount of investment and profit as
promised. It attracts the offence under Section 9 of the
KPIDFE Act. The appellant/accused No.1 cheated several
other persons. The appellant/accused No.1 is required for
custodial interrogation. With this he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the
appellant/accused No.1 and learned High Court
Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the
impugned order, FIR, compliant and other documents.
7. The complainant has transferred a total sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- in the current account of the Supreme
Traders. It is stated that the appellant/accused No.1 is
the proprietor of the said Supreme Traders. As per form-C
registration certificate of establishment issued by the
Senior Labour Inspector, the establishment of Supreme
Traders is carrying on business in used car scrap dealers.
The appellant/accused No.1 has not disputed that the
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
complainant has transferred a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to
the current account of the Supreme Traders. The said
Supreme Traders is not financial establishment as defined
under Section 2(4) of the KPIDFE Act. There are no
documents at this stage to show that this
appellant/accused No.1 is running sponzy schemes by
receiving money from the people agreeing to pay high
returns to them. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said
that offence under Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act is
attracted. The other offences alleged against the
appellant/accused No.1 under Section 420 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code are not punishable death or life
imprisonment. The appellant/accused No.1 has undertaken
to cooperate in the police investigation. Without
considering all these aspects the learned Special Judge has
passed impugned order which requires interference by this
Court. The appellant/accused No.1 has made out grounds
for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
anticipatory bail. In the result following
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 19.07.2023 passed
in Crl.Misc.No.5486/2023 by the Principal City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside.
The appellant/accused No.1 has granted
anticipatory bail and he is ordered to be released
on bail in event of his arrest in Crime
No.82/2023 of the Thilaknagar Police Station,
subject to the following conditions;
a. The appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh only) with one surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigation Officer;
b. The appellant/accused No.1 shall
voluntarily appear before the Investigation
Officer within 15 days from today and
execute bail bonds and furnish surety.
NC: 2023:KHC:36010
CRL.A No. 1520 of 2023
c. The appellant/accused No.1 shall
cooperate with the Investigation Officer in
the investigation.
d. The appellant/accused No.1 shall not
directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
e. The appellant/accused No.1 shall mark
their presence in the jurisdictional Police
Station on first and third Sunday between
10.00a.m to 2.00p.m for a period of 02
months or till filling the final report,
whichever is earlier.
e. The appellant/accused No.1 shall not
threaten the complainant and other
prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
