Accused Cannot Get Bail If There Are Ongoing Investigations, Inquiries, or Trials In Multiple Cases: Karnataka High Court.

The Karnataka High Court rejected K. Ramakrishna’s third bail request. The court noted Section 479(2) of BNSS, 2023, which states that if a person has multiple pending cases or offenses, they cannot be granted bail. Ramakrishna, the founder of Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank, turned to the High Court after the Supreme Court denied his previous bail applications. He had asked the Trial Court for bail on different grounds, citing Section 479(1) of BNSS, 2023, and claiming delays in his trial after spending two years and seven months in custody. Justice H.P. Sandesh emphasized that the second part of Section 479(1) allows for longer detention if necessary. The Trial Court considered that there were multiple offenses against Ramakrishna, including IPC offenses and a separate PML case.

Advocate Balakrishna M.R. represented Ramakrishna, while CGSC Unnikrishnan M. represented the other side. The main argument was that Ramakrishna deserved bail under Section 479(1) due to his lengthy custody. His lawyer pointed out that the maximum punishment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is seven years, with a minimum of three years. The lawyer also argued that the Trial Court’s reasoning was flawed and that BNSS should apply in this situation.

The Petitioner referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case regarding inhumane conditions in prisons [Writ petition (Civil) No.406/2013] and argued that the BNSS provisions should apply to all undertrials in ongoing cases, regardless of whether their cases were filed before July 1, 2024. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was charged under Section 3 of the PML Act, which carries penalties under Section 4 of the same Act. This provision prevents bail for those accused under the PML Act unless they meet specific requirements, regardless of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not overridden by the BNSS.

The Bench highlighted that Section 479 of the BNSS clarifies that the benefits of the first proviso to Section 479 depend on Section 479(2) of the BNSS. It stated that if a person has multiple pending cases involving different offenses, they cannot be granted bail. The Bench noted that the petitioner is the founder of the Bank and is accused of misusing Rs.1,544 Crore by creating fake deposits, with Rs.882.85 Crore sanctioned to just 24 major beneficiaries. There were specific claims that the petitioner orchestrated the fraud, a point the High Court considered twice. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

A separate case was filed against him under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B read with 34 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act. The court noted that since the offenses are different and multiple cases exist against the petitioner, he cannot use the provision under Section 479 of BNSS to seek relief based on one-third punishment. Even if considered, he has already served the maximum punishment, and this provision does not apply here. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the numerous cases against the petitioner, highlighting that over Rs.1,544 Crores in fraud was committed, especially since he is the founder Chairman of the bank involved.

The court also pointed out that under Section 531 of BNSS, there is a saving clause regarding the old Act when the Cr.P.C. is repealed. It stated that with this saving clause, the new law’s provisions cannot be invoked. The court remarked that being in custody for two years and seven months is not a valid reason to grant bail, especially since the charges involve a PML offense related to a fraud of Rs.1,553 Crores through fake documents and loans to non-existent individuals, particularly 24 people, with Rs.928 Crores misappropriated. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

Cause Title: Mr. K. Ramakrishna V. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [Case No. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9930/2024]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Balakrishna M.R.
Respondents: CGSC Unnikrishnan M.