Jagadeesh Chandra Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE 3RD FLOOR B BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGARA TTMC KH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI JAYAKAR SHETTY, ADV.)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/ STATE SAME IS REGISTERED IN SPL.C.NO.91/2018 OF DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT FOR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE OFFENCS P/U/S 3, 4 AND 8(5) OF THE PMLA ACT, 2002, ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANGALORE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

1. Accused No.7 in Spl.C.No.91/2018 pending before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PMLA' for short), is

¶25

before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

3. Petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences punishable

¶28

under Sections 302, 353, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 in Crime No.245/2013 registered by Ankola Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, and in the said case, subsequently the

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, were also invoked. Since the offences mentioned in Crime No.245/2013 were scheduled offences under Section 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the PMLA and since there was prima-facie material for money laundering, a report was registered in ECIR No.15/BGZO/201415 and after completing investigation, complaint was filed in which petitioner is arraigned as accused no.7. The Special Court has taken cognizance of the alleged offences punishable under the provisions of the PMLA on 28.09.2018 in Spl. C. No.91/2018. In the said case, petitioner had filed bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 02.08.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court in this petition.

¶32

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences in the present case is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Petitioner is in custody in the present case from 18.12.2021 onwards. His application for parole is not considered or being rejected for the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

reason that he is not granted bail in the present case. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶37

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who has

¶38

filed statement of objections has opposed the petition. He submits that for the purpose of tracing the properties involved in money laundering and to find out the end process of placement and layering done by the accused in conjunction with others involved, petitioner's custody is very much required. He also submits that petitioner has been now convicted for life imprisonment for the predicate offences. He further submits that in view of Section 45 of the PMLA, petitioner's bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶39

6. Petitioner is in custody in the present case from 18.12.2021 onwards. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Section 479 of BNSS, 2023 provides for the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.

¶40

7. From a reading of the same, it is apparent that an undertrial prisoner, who is under detention for a period

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

extending upto one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, shall be released by the Court on bail. In the present case, petitioner is in custody for the last more than four years. Therefore, the rigour under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be made applicable as against the petitioner in the present case more so, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udhaw Singh vs. Enforcement Directorate - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 357.

¶45

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has made a submission that petitioner's custody is required for the purpose of tracing the properties involved in money laundering and to find out the end process of placement and layering done by the accused in conjunction with others involved. Investigation of case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed in the present case. Supplementary charge sheet was subsequently filed in the present case and the progress in the case is stalled since further proceedings as against accused Nos.2, 3, and 4 is stayed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8522/2018 and Crl.P.No.8970/2018. Under the circumstances, I am of the

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:-

¶49

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.91/2018 pending before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶51

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶52

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:28046 CRL.P No. 1278 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶57

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶58

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

DN

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Jagadeesh Chandra Raj Urs v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesh Chandra Raj Urs v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabir Jahur Mohammad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Abhishek @ Bpooth Vs State by

Rudresh. R @ Rudra Vs State by Karnataka by the SHO

Sri. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh K S Vs the State of Karnataka