The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the alleged offences, the accused's role, and the provisions of the relevant Acts are crucial factors in determining the appropriateness of granting bail.

B.A. Patil, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on regular bail in Crime No.177/2018 of Jayanagar Police Station (Spl.C.C.No.105/2018) for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha. B.N, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that one D.T.Naveen Nanda filed a complaint alleging that M/s. Ajmeer Group Firm collected deposit of Rs.30.00 Crores from nearly 4000 customers with an intention to cheat the general public. Petitioner-accused No.4 and other two persons were partners and action may be taken in this behalf. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused No.4 is an employee, being an employee of accused No.1-Firm he is not liable for any of the offences punishable under any of the Acts. He further submitted that he has not collected any deposits and not encouraged any people to deposit funds. No role has been played by him in the alleged crime. He further submitted that no persons who have invested the funds have filed the complaint. The complaint has been filed by a stranger who has not invested any money with the accused No.1-Firm. He further submitted that as per the said Act, the maximum punishment is six years and the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 is the one who brought the customers to the Firm of accused No.1 and he has played a key role in making the people investing their funds to the accused No.1-Firm and nearly more than 4000 people have invested crores of rupees and the petitioner-accused No.4 who being the member of the said syndicate has cheated the public and now in order to evade the responsibility on him, he is saying that he is only an employee of the said Firm. He further submitted that knowingly fully aware about the scheme of the Firm, petitioner-accused No.4 encouraged the people to invest their funds and as such, he is also liable to be punished under Section 3 of the said Act. He further submitted that if he is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for the investigation and interrogation, still the investigation is in progress. The Investigating Agency has to ascertain how many persons are involved in the said criminal activities and apart from frozen money, the deposits so which they have about to be seized has to be ascertained. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully gone through the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 which reads as follows;

3. Act to override other laws, memorandum, articles, etc.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act-

(a) the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association or bye-laws or in any agreement or resolution whether the same be registered, executed or passed, as the case may be, before or after the commencement of this Act; and

(b) any provision contained in the memorandum, articles, bye-laws, agreement or resolution aforesaid, shall, to the extent to which it is repugnant to the provisi