SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
R.M. Manjunath Gowda S/o Ramappa Gowda - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Ministry of Finance and Department of Revenue - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7473 of 2025
Decided On : 02-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Jaykumar S. Patil, Varun Jaykumar Patil
For the Respondents: Aravind Kumar, Modhukar Deshpande

Bail can be granted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if foundational facts are not established, emphasizing the need for strong evidence before presumption of guilt arises.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner's involvement in the offence investigated under ECIR/BGO/05/2021 - Allegations relate to multiple FIRs including FIR No. 325/2014 and FIR No. 16/2021 against the petitioner for various IPC sections and P.C. Act - Bail application rejected by Special Court but allowed by the High Court due to lack of strong material against petitioner; presumption under Section 24 of the Act requires foundational facts to be established - (Paras 1-29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an ex-President of a cooperative bank, was implicated in multiple FIRs relating to financial misconduct but not charged in the earlier FIR, and charged only for offences under the P.C. Act which were staying pending. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in a money laundering case over allegations from predicate offences.

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient material to conclude guilt, hence granted bail pending trial.

Issues: Was there sufficient material against the petitioner? Should the court grant bail despite allegations?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that foundational facts for the offence of money laundering must be established by the prosecution and the presumption of guilt under Section 24 of the Act does not apply until such facts are proven.

Result: Petition allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail with conditions.

Table of Content
1. seeking bail in money laundering case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. accused involved in multiple firs linked to money laundering. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments for bail grounded on lack of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. definition and punishment for money laundering outlined. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. conditions for bail under pmla explained. (Para 11 , 12)
6. court's application of mind for bail. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. presumption under section 24 requires foundational facts. (Para 16 , 19)
8. reviewing predicate offences in relation to bail. (Para 17 , 20 , 21)
9. no distinct criminality since last fir. (Para 22 , 23)
10. value of co-accused's confession in bail hearings. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
11. bail granted due to remoteness of trial and health of petitioner. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Accused in ECIR/BGO/05/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') pending before the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 4 39 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner was the elected President of Shivamogga District Co-operative Central Bank, Shivamogga (for short 'SDCC Bank') during the years 1997-1998, 1999-2010, 2011-2014 and 2015-2020. FIR in Crime No.325/2014 was registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga, against B.Shobha - Branch Manager of SDCC Bank and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 408, 409, 420, 34 of IPC, and in the said case, petitioner was arrayed as accused no.15 in the FIR. Subsequently, the case was transferred to CID for further investigation. After completing investigation in the said case, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 465, 471, 120B, 201 read with 37 of IPC. However, petitioner was dropped in the said charge sheet. Subsequently, FIR in Crime No.16/2021 was registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Shivamogga, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 168, 200, 403, 405, 409, 418, 419, 420, 424, 425, 427, 467, 468, 474 read with 34 of IPC and Section 109 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. After registration of FIR in Crime No.16/2021, additional charge sheet was filed in Crime No.325/2014 against the petitioner on 30.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 202 read with 36 of IPC.

4. FIR in Crime No.4/2014 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act') and after completing investigation in the said case, charge sheet has been already filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is in this background, ECIR/BGO/05/2021 was registered against the petitioner by the respondent alleging that proceeds of crime in the aforesaid criminal cases was utilized directly or indirectly by the petitioner for the purpose of deriving/obtaining property. In the said proceedings, petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the Special Court in ECIR/BGO/05/2021, was rejected on 20.05.2025. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Crime No.325/2014 which was registered for the schedule offences, after investigation, no charge sheet was filed initially against the petitioner. On the very same allegations, FIR in Crime No.16/2021 was registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Shivamogga, and the said FIR was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.8294/2021 on the ground that the allegations made in Crime No.325/2014 and Crime No.16/2021 and the period during which the alleged offences were committed were one and the same. Though additional charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.325/2014 against the petitioner, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top