Sri. Anand Balakrishna Appugol vs Assistant Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 6839 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:35323
                                                       CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4287 OF 2023

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI ANAND BALAKRISHNA APPUGOL
                         S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA LAXMANRAO APPUGOL
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                         CHAIRMAN OF SHREE KRANTIVEER SANGOLI
                         RAYANNA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
                         OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS

                         PERMANENT ADDRESS:
                         R/AT PLOT 2,. 1ST MAIN,
                         2ND STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR,
                         BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590019.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                              (BY SRI GADILINGAPPA G.M., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T      1.    ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Location: HIGH           DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
COURT OF                 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KARNATAKA
                         BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE
                         3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING,
                         SHANTHINAGAR TTMC, K.H.ROAD,
                         BANGALORE-27
                         REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
                         SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR
                         HIGH COURT BUILDING
                         BANGALORE-560 001.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                                 (BY SRI L. SUNDARESAN, ASG FOR
                                SRI M. JAYAKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:35323
                                        CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.89/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PML ACT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondent.

2. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently

contend that investigation has been completed and charge

sheet is also filed and this petitioner is in custody from

5.1.2022 and also counsel would submit that he was taken to

custody on 5.11.2018 in respect of the consumer case and

already he has completed half of the punishment for the

offence punishable under Section 4 of The Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'PML Act') i.e. not

less than three years and the same is extended up to seven

years and hence, this Court has to invoke Section 436A of

Cr.PC. The counsel also vehemently contend that already

NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023

amount and properties were also seized and though the

property worth is shown as 31 crores, but attached property is

more than the allegation made against him and only SR value

is considered and not the market value and the very

mentioning of only property is 31 crores was attached cannot

be accepted and hence he may be enlarged on bail and

petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed

by this Court.

3. Per contra, Sri.L.Sundaresan, ASG appears for the

respondent would vehemently contend that this Court in detail

discussed the allegations made against this petitioner and he

has siphoned the amount of more than 13 thousand investors

money and total amount of siphoning the amount of the

investors is 239 crores and also counsel would vehemently

contend that under Section 45 of the PML Act the petitioner

has to satisfy that he has not committed an offence and

material clearly discloses that investigation has been completed

and charge sheet is also filed and also separate complaint is

filed and cognizance is taken and material is also collected

against this petitioner and hence, he is not entitled for bail and

this Court has taken gravity of the offence while dismissing the

NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023

earlier bail petition. The counsel also would vehemently submits

that Section 436A cannot be invoked and he was taken to

custody only on 5.1.2022 and not as contended by the

petitioner's counsel and the same is not in connection with this

crime is concerned and he is not entitled for bail.

4. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the

counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the

material, this Court earlier rejected the bail petition in Criminal

Petition No.3338/2022 vide order dated 24.6.2022 and also

taken note of the gravity of the offence alleged against this

petitioner and an allegation is made that 281.14 crores of the

amount of investors was misappropriated by this petitioner and

also taken note of properties are acquired in the family

members and also purchased the bungalow at Belagavi for a

consideration of Rs.1.50 crores and has availed loan of Rs.1

crore from Canara Bank and the petitioner has also purchased

Land Rover Discovery SUV Car in the year 2016 for 1.25 crores

and all materials were taken note of by this Court and also

taken note of the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of P.CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF

ENFORCEMENT reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and also the

NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023

judgment in the case of MOHD.ARIF VS. GOVERNMENT OF

INDIA reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI 544 and also

taken note of the judgment in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 396 and in detail discussed with

the same and also taken note of the amount of Rs.250 Crores

was siphoned by this petitioner and in detail discussed the

material on record.

5. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel

before this Court in a successive bail petition that this Court

can invoke Section 436A and rightly pointed out by the counsel

for the respondent that he was taken to custody on 5.1.2022 in

this case and not prior to that and though he was in custody

from 5.11.2018 and the same not pertaining to this Case and

admittedly the petitioner's counsel submits that the same is

arising out of a case of consumer forum. When such materials

are available on record, question of invoking Section 436A of

Cr.PC also does not arise. The Court also while exercising the

discretion take note of the gravity of the offence and though

the offences are invoked under Section 406, 408, 420 of IPC in

Crime No.185/2017 and separate proceedings has also initiated

NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023

under the PML Act and also this petitioner being the Chairman

of Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna Urban Credit Society

(KSRUCS) allegedly indulged in misappropriating the amount of

around 239 crores and the said money is also the investors who

have invested the amount of more than 13 thousand investors

and also taken note of the property attached is only 31 crores

and not as contended by the petitioner's counsel it is worth

more than the alleged against the petitioner. Hence, I do not

find any changed circumstances to enlarge the petitioner on

bail.

6. The petitioner has not made out any ground to

invoke Section 45 of PML Act also and PML Act is also very clear

that the petitioner has to make out the prima facie case that he

has not committed the offence and material collected by the

respondent is sufficient to prima facie make out a case against

the petitioner and hence not a case for enlarging the petitioner

on bail in a successive bail petition either invoking Section 436A

and also merits as there is no changed circumstances.

NC: 2023:KHC:35323 CRL.P No. 4287 of 2023

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AP