9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in Cr. No. 185/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 of IPC and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and case number also given in C.C. No. 1/2020 which is pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. The petitioner was earlier arrested and enlarged on bail by this Court at Dharwad Bench in Crl.P. No. 102337/2017. It is also the contention that respondent filed an application under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and he was remanded to the custody and now, this petitioner is in judicial custody and hence, he has approached the Trial Court in Crl. Misc. No. 695/2022 and the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the material placed before the Court does not suggest that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of PML Act. This petitioner was booked in Cr. No. 185/2017, arrested and detained in prison for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and this High Court granted bail and detention and deprivation of his liberty again for the said scheduled offence le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner referring the said judgment vehemently contend that this petitioner is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court dated 25.05.2021 in the case of KRISHNA MOHAN TRIPATHI VS. STATE and the counsel brought to notice of this Court to paragraphs 8 and 12 wherein an observation is made that driving the parties to another round of bail plea in the Trial Court or in the High Court does not appear serving the cause of justice and we see no reason to deny the personal liberty to the appellant now at this stage, particularly when his properties otherwise remain attached and it is also pointed out that his passport is already deposited with the CBI. The counsel referring to this judgment vehemently contend that in this case also, the property of the petitioner was attached and passport also impounded. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Crl.P. No. 1189/2022 dated 30.03.2022 wherein this Court observed that once an accused granted bail by a judicial Magistrate or the Session Court as the case may be in respect of the predicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of objections, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 in the case of P.CHIDAMBARAM vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and brought to the notice of this Court to paragraph 38 and so also the judgment reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI 544 in the case of MOHD. ARIF vs GOVT. OF INDIA wherein the Orissa High Court in paragraph 23 held that while deciding a bail application, the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 24 which reverses the burden of proof and creates presumption of guilt required to be dislodged by the accused, will mandatorily apply. The counsel also relied upon the judgment between ROHIT TANDON vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT in the said judgment also a similar view has been held. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 396 in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY wherein, it is held that the Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors' money seriously. Though further investigation is going on, as of now, the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRIPATHI's case observed that when the properties has been attached and passport is impounded, granted bail but in the case on hand, properties are attached only to the tune of Rs. 31 crore and the investors invested the money to the tune of Rs. 250 crore and the said amount has not been refunded and the judgment of the Apex Court in RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY's case taken note of the fact that the Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors' money seriously and it is also observed that though further investigation is going on, as of now, the investigation discloses that the respondent played a key role in the promotion of the chit fund scam described supra, thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard-earned money. In the case on hand also the specific allegation is made that this petitioner had misappropriated the investors' money to the tune of Rs. 250 crore and the same has not been refunded and admittedly, only Rs. 35 lakh was refunded and only Rs. 31 crore properties were attached but the amount involved in misappropriation and siphonin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
