Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8353
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
Shreesha Sasithota Prabhakaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2022|SPL.C.C.NO.1792/2022|CR.NO.11/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandrashekara K A
For the Respondents: S Vishwamurthy
In economic offences where a charge sheet is filed and the accused demonstrates a willingness to satisfy creditors through assets and bank balances, and where the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, bail may be granted with stringent conditions.
Headnote:The appellant was charged under Sections 420, 419, 406, 403, 120-B, 506 of the IPC, Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act 2004, and Sections 5, 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019, following allegations of defrauding investors through a stock market agency. The court found that while a significant sum was allegedly diverted, more than half of the investment had been refunded and the appellant offered immovable assets and bank balances to cover the remaining deficit. The central issue was whether the appellant deserved bail given the nature of the economic offence. The court reasoned that since the charge sheet was already filed, custodial interrogation was no longer required, and the appellant's willingness to liquidate property for investors, coupled with the fact that the offences are not punishable by death or life imprisonment, outweighed the risk of absconding. The appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case facts and charges involving financial fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's grounds for bail including asset availability and lack of need for interrogation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. state's opposition based on the nature of economic offences and risk of absconding. (Para 15) |
| 4. court's evaluation of evidence, refunds made, and appellant's residential status. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. grant of bail based on the totality of circumstances and imposition of conditions. (Para 22 , 23) |
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.16 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.1792/2022 AND GRANT HIM BAIL IN CR.NO.11/2022 OF SHANKARAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.1792/2022 AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 419, 406, 403, 120-B, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTERST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2004 AND 5, 21(3) OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOIST SCHEMES ACT 2019.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellant/accused No.1 has filed this appeal seeking setting aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Spl.C.C.No.1792/2022 by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru where under the bail application of this appellant/accused No.1 sought in crime No.11/2022 of Shankarapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections, 420,419,406,403,120B and 506 IPC, Section 4 read with Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) and Section 5 read with Section 21(3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019(BUDS) came to be rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant and her family members have invested money towards purchase of shares to a company called M/s. Sunness Capital India Limited having its regional office at No.213, II Floor, V Main, Opp. Bank of India, RPC layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. The accused are the Directors of the said Company. The complainant and her family members have invested money towards purchase of huge value of shares through the said company. As time passed by and deadlines for issuance of shares and repayments on the sum invested came up. The accused alleged to have given vague and untenable excuses to shirk responsibilities and avoid payments with the sole intention of defrauding the complainant and several others. The appellant/accused No.1 in connivance with their staff members alleged to have diverted the entire funds to utilize for their personal use and not for the purpose for which the funds were collected by the complainant and other investors and committed the aforesaid offence. The said complaint came to be registered in Shankarapura Police station in Crime No.11/2022 for the aforesaid offence.
5. Investigating Officer after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant and other accused for the aforesaid offence and the case came to be registered in Spl.C.C.No.1792/2022 pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The appellant came to be arrested on 21.05.2022 and he is in judicial custody.
6. The appellant/accused No.1 has filed bail application in Spl.C.C.No.1792/2022 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 20.09.2022. The appellant/accused No.1 has challenged the said order in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the app
