Allowed

Sri Raghu K K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024CRL.A/1711/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal admitting the appellant, accused no.6, in a case involving the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and IPC offences for cheating. The court set aside the lower court's order rejecting anticipatory bail, noting the appellant's limited role compared to other accused who were previously bailed.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside; the appellant is released on bail worth Rs. 2 lakhs with conditions including appearance within 10 days.

Sri Raghu K K Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1711 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAGHU K K S/O KRISHNA SHETTY K S AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 34, 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 054

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

CHIKKAMAGALURU C E N POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 16 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2004 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶18

CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.405/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Learned HCGP takes notice for the State.

¶22

In this appeal preferred under Section 16 of the

¶23

Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Institutions Act, 2004 ("KPIDFE Act", for short), the appellant is seeking to set aside the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.405/2024, dismissing his petition seeking Anticipatory Bail.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the material thereon.

¶25

On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rudresh.G, S/o Late Gangegowda, C.E.N.Crime Police, Chikkamagalur, registered Crime No.66/2024 against accused nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶27

Section 21 (1) (2) and (3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The appellant is arrayed as accused no.6 in the FIR.

¶28

It is alleged in the complaint that the accused

¶29

persons have lured the complainant and similar others by introducing them to a scheme called "Make Free Trips", to deposit money promising that they will be taken to various places like Goa, Odisha, Dubai and so on and also in Cruise Ship etc., and then cheated them by not fulfilling the promise.

¶30

The complainant and his wife is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the account provided by the accused persons and similarly the accused are alleged to have collected a sum of Rs.2,46,48,000/- from various persons promising them to give double the amount they have paid etc., but cheated them without returning the amount as assured.

¶31

Learned HCGP has contended that appellant is the one who has introduced the complainant initially to the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶33

Scheme by giving them Brochures and induced them to join the Scheme and pay the amount. He contended that investigation is under progress and if the appellant is enlarged on Anticipatory Bail, he may not cooperate with the investigation and he may flee from justice.

¶34

Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the only allegation in the complaint against the appellant is that he explained about the Scheme called "Make Free Trips" to the complainant and apart from that, there are no materials to show that either the appellant is the Beneficiary of the Scheme or that any amount was deposited in his account. He submitted that accused nos.3, 4 and 5 are enlarged on bail by this court and accused nos.1 an 2 are granted bail by the Special Court.

¶35

According to the complaint averments, in the month of March, 2023 one Smt.Radha Rajkumar introduced her brother by name Raghu, the appellant herein, to the complainant, who explained about the scheme called "Make Free Trips" and gave Brochures, as

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶37

per which, if an amount of Rs.9,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- was paid by the members, they will be taken to National and International tour for free etc. It is stated that under the said scheme, several persons were initially taken to Goa, Odisha and the amount paid to them was also returned. Further allegations are that accused persons arranged meetings at different places and lured the persons to join the scheme and invest money and assured that they will be taken to different destinations, but without fulfilling the promise, cheated them etc. It is also alleged that the 'APP' created in the name of "Make Free Trips" was fake and when the complainant and others tried to contact the accused persons, there was no response from them.

¶38

As per the contention of the learned counsel, the appellant has no role in the business affairs of the scheme floated by accused nos.1 and 2 except the allegation that he introduced the complainant to the scheme. It is also contended that the appellant himself is an Investor and

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶40

the scheme was to the effect that the investor had to introduce new investors to enroll into the scheme and similarly they would introduce others.

¶41

The complaint averments do not disclose as to

¶42

any amount was paid to the appellant/accused no.6 or any amount was collected by him either from the complainant or from other depositors. On the other hand, it is specifically stated that the amount was deposited to the account provided by accused no.1 and accused no.2, who introduced himself as the CEO and lured the public to invest money etc.

¶43

This court while considering the prayer of accused nos.3, 4 and 5 for Anticipatory bail has taken note of the above aspects and allowed the appeal preferred by them in Crl.A No.1527/2024 disposed of on 05.09.2024. On similar terms and conditions, appeal can be allowed. In the result, the appellant is entitled for the relief sought.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:40065 CRL.A No. 1711 of 2024

¶46

Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The appeal is allowed.

¶49

The order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, rejecting the application seeking anticipatory bail filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS in Crl.Mis.405/2024 is set aside.

¶50

The appellant/accused no.6 is ordered to be released in the event of his arrest in Crime No.66/2024 registered by C.E.N.Crime Police, Chikkamagalur, subject to following conditions:

¶51

i) The appellant/accused no.6 shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶52

ii) He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶53