John Michael Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY K.R.PURAM P.S., IN CR.NO.247/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ACMM, AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,465,468,471,120(B),201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:14258 CRL.P No. 3667 of 2025

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused no.1 in Crime No.247/2022 registered by K.R.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 34 IPC is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.247/2022 was registered by K.R.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others based on the first information dated 05.07.2022 received from Ritesh Kumar - Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.26216/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 23.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner is a kidney patient and he needs regular treatment for the same. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:14258 CRL.P No. 3667 of 2025

¶29

purpose of investigation in the present case. The co-accused have been already granted bail in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and considering the nature of allegations found against him in the present case, his custodial interrogation becomes necessary. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint against the petitioner and his wife and after completing the investigation, final report was also filed against the petitioner and his wife and the accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in Spl.C.C.No.132/2015. It appears that in the said case, there was an attachment order passed in respect of the properties belonging to the accused persons and the allegations in the present case against the petitioner and other accused persons is that by creating fraudulent documents, they had managed to delete the entries regarding the attachment in

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:14258 CRL.P No. 3667 of 2025

¶34

respect of the property belonging to them, and thereafter, the said property was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.55,41,630/-. It is in this background, based on the first information received from the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, initially FIR in Crime No.113/2022 was registered by Wilson Garden Police Station for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others, and subsequently, for want of jurisdiction, the case was transferred and FIR was subsequently registered in Crime No.247/2022 by K.R.Puram Police Station.

¶35

It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has been convicted by the jurisdictional Court in Spl.C.C.No.132/2015. So far as the allegation in the present case is concerned, though an order was passed by the competent authority attaching the property of the petitioner, petitioner and other accused persons by creating fraudulent documents, have managed to delete the entries regarding attachment in respect of their property and subsequently they also have managed to sell the said property for a valid sale consideration. Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons in the present case and considering the nature of allegations found in the first

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:14258 CRL.P No. 3667 of 2025

¶38

information, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary.

¶39

Petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he has now been convicted and sentenced in the case registered against him for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd /-

¶41

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶42

KK

John Michael v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Michael v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sannamallige Vs State by Bilikere Ps

Sri Syed Afsan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nikhil M M Vs State of Karnataka

Marappa Reddygari Shivareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Diksha Kumari @ Diksha @ Kumari Diksha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Anil Kumar Alias Anila Alias Layout Anila Vs the State of Karnataka