Anticipatory bail cannot be granted if the accused is required for custodial interrogation and if the investigation is ongoing, especially after previous rejections on merits.

CAV ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.8/2021 registered by the Seshadripuram police station, now pending on the file of III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, hereinafter referred to as trial court in C.C.No.21893/2022 for having charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 465, 468, 471, 420, read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, FIR came to be registered by the police on 27.02.2021. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that the informant is one of the partners of M/s. Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons (Firm) and M/s. Khoday RCA Industries. M/s. Khoday Eshwarsa and his sons are partners, running the partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and production of India Made liquor and carrying business since 60 years. It is further alleged that the accused No.2 (since deceased) is one of the partners entrusted with the responsibility of taking decisions in respect of payments to be made for the firm and who approves and disapproves the same. The accused No.2 is authroised to release the payments. The informant came to know that the other partners of the firm said to have spent Rs.17.73 crores as expenditure towards the promotional activities of the branches of the firm all over the State, as per the invoice raised in the name of accused No.5/ Sri. Surabhi Enterprises, and there is no signature of the accused persons on the said invoices. They have committed irregularities and releasing the funds by forging the documents by creating false documents, thereby they have cheated the firm by causing misappropriation of funds of the firm.

4. It is further alleged that on verification with the dealers he came to know that there is no such promotional activities took place and the said accused No.5/ Sri. Surabhi Enterprises is a fake company. In fact the owners of the Sri. Surabhi Enterprises was the driver of a tanker who supplies spirit for manufacture of liquors. The said Sri. Surabhi Enterprises has no office and it is created for self. More than Rs.17.73 crores has been paid to the Sri. Surabhi Enterprises, which was in fact transferred to the mothers account of a person who is a transporters of the spirit. The said amount has been immediately withdrawn from his mother's account. A false promotional agreement has been created by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the accused No.3 is the Manager of the firm. All of them colluded together involved in creation of false documents in the name of fake company owner by accused No.5 and paid the amount, thereby they caused loss of Rs.17.73 crores to the firm and they misappropriated the amount and also cheated the partners.

5. After registering the FIR, the accused No.2 approached the Session Judge for anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed in Crl.Misc.2192/2021. Later, the same was challenged by the defacto complainant by filing Crl.P.No.2489/2021 under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed . The anticipatory bail granted to the accused No.2 has been cancelled. Subsequently, the police were not able to arrest the accused Nos.1 and 2, hence they approached the Session Judge for granting anticipatory bail. Meanwhile, the accused No.2 died and hence the accused No.1 and accused No.6 approached the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this court by filing Crl.P.2493/2021 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by this court dated 12.7.2021. Accordingly, once again the accused No.1 along with accused No.6, are before this court for granting anticipatory bail by way of successive bail application.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the pe