Dismissed¶67

Sri. Srinivas Rao Kaki v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Apr 2026CRL.P/530/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection; economic offence; stringency in economic fraud; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Section 483 BNSS; IPC Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 149; KMVSTDCL scam; Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited; Crime No.118/2024; C.C.No.25626/2024; III Addl. CMM Bengaluru; High Grounds Police Station; SIT CID; Union Bank of India M.G. Road Branch; charge sheet filed; prior rejection Crl.P.No.11420/2024; SLP dismissed; S Rachaiah J.; CRL.P No. 530 of 2026; decided 27.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. ¶60

Sri. Srinivas Rao Kaki Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.25626/2024 (Cr.No.118/2024), is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Having considered the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted cannot be the ground to grant bail.

¶60

Key takeaways

When economic fraud is involved, the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with such matters.ratio¶60
The petitioner, being accused No.2, has committed a heinous offence involving economic fraud in which huge money is involved; hence it is not appropriate to grant him bail.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah J.), by CAV judgment dated 27.04.2026, rejects a Criminal Petition under S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS seeking regular bail for accused No.2, Srinivas Rao Kaki, in C.C.No.25626/2024 (Cr.No.118/2024, High Grounds Police Station; now investigated by SIT of CID), pending before the III Addl. CMM, Bengaluru. The case arises from the alleged KMVSTDCL funds scam, wherein forged letters, cheques and RTGS requests bore fake signatures and forged board resolutions, resulting in disbursement of Rs.94,73,08,500/- through Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch, Bengaluru; the Special Public Prosecutor stated the total amount involved as Rs.89,69,99,500/- of public money diverted into fictitious accounts. Held: (i) having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to bail; (ii) completion of investigation and submission of the charge sheet cannot be a ground to grant bail; (iii) where economic fraud is involved, the Courts are to be stringent, and it is the duty of the Court to gain the confidence of the public to secure the ends of justice. Earlier bail attempts (Crl.P.No.11420/2024 dismissed on 19.12.2024; SLP before the Apex Court dismissed on 14.02.2025; Sessions Court applications rejected, the latter on 11.12.2025) preceded this petition, heard and reserved on 05.03.2026. Petition stands rejected.

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 530 OF 2026

¶8

(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SRINIVAS RAO KAKI

¶11

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANYA KAKI R/AT B-1604

¶12

VAISHNAVI NAKSHTRA APARTMENT

¶13

NEAR YASHWANTHAOPURA RAILWAY STATION YASHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR

¶17

ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY MELRIC NARONHA,

¶18

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶21

HIGH GROUNDS POLICE SATION NOW INVESTIGATED BY SIT OF CID BENGALURU

¶22

REPRESENTED BY STATE

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶25

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001

¶26

SRI A RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O ANJAN L R/AT NO. 10 3RD FLOOR KHADI BHAVAN JASMADEVI BHAVAN VASANTHANAGR BENGALURU CITY

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA., SPECIAL PP)

¶29

¶30

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CC NO.25626/2024 (CRIME NO.118/2024 OF HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BENGALURU URBAN) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 409, 120(B), 465, 468 AND 471 AND R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CMM, BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE.

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶35

CAV JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.25626/2024 pending on the file of III ACMM, Bangalore, arising out of Cr.No.118/2024 of respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶37

Brief facts of the case :

¶38

The case of the prosecution is that the General Manager of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited (KMVSTDCL) lodges a complaint stating that numerous forged letters, cheques, and RTGS requests are bearing fake signatures of officers, accounts officer and forged/fake board resolutions leading to the unauthorized disbursement of funds from the organization’s bank account. Upon a detailed verification of the passbook, it was found that an amount of Rs.94,73,08,500/- had been disbursed to various accounts by Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch, Bengaluru.

¶39

It is further alleged that several officials within the organization were involved in the said scam. Consequently, the

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶42

complaint was registered with a prayer to conduct a thorough investigation and to hold accountable the senior management, top management bank officials of the Union Bank of India, and all other persons involved in the fraudulent activity.

¶43

Based on the said complaint, the respondent-police registered a case in Cr.No.118/2024 against the petitioner and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.

¶44

Heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Ajay Melric Noronha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶45

It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2, the fact remains that he was named neither in the FIR nor in the complaint. Though several allegations are made against him, those are baseless and bald. Moreover, the investigation is completed and the petitioner is not required for investigation.

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶48

It is further submitted that merely because the

¶49

huge amount is involved in the alleged scam, that itself is not a ground to deny the bail. In fact, the alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Moreover, the offences are exclusively triable by the Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶50

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent - State vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. It is further submitted that huge amount is involved in the scam. This petitioner had approached this Court seeking bail in Crl.P.No.11420/2024. However, the said petition has been dismissed on 19.12.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court seeking regular bail. However, the said Special Leave petition has been dismissed on 14.02.2025.

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶53

It is further submitted that pursuant to the said order of the dismissal, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Court and sought for regular bail on the health ground. The Sessions Court opined that no grounds were made out to grant bail and accordingly, it was rejected.

¶54

It is further submitted that again the petitioner had approached the same Court seeking bail on the ground that the investigating agency has furnished its first supplementary charge sheet. However, even after filing the charge sheet, the bail petition was rejected on 11.12.2025.

¶55

It is further submitted that the petitioner and others were involved in misappropriation scam. The total amount involved in this case is Rs.89,69,99,500/-. The public money is involved in the scam and the huge amount has been diverted into different fictitious accounts and serious economic threat has been committed by the petitioner and others. Moreover, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Andhra Pradesh, and there is a likelihood of committing similar offences or absconding. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail. Making such submissions, learned Special Public Prosecutor prays to reject the petition.

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶59

parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it appears that the petitioner executed the plan of siphoning off funds under the supervision of Nekkenti Nagaraju and Nageshwar Rao. The investigation would indicate that the petitioner had actively been involved in transferring the funds from the organization. It is alleged that the petitioner had co-ordinated with the bank officials and facilitated to transfers and the opening of fraudulent accounts in connivance with others and also it is alleged that the petitioner had co-ordinated the movement of funds through multiple accounts to enable their withdrawal as cash, which was then utilized for various purposes.

¶60

Having considered the nature, gravity and also seriousness of the offences, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. It is also settled principle of law that merely because the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted cannot be the ground to grant bail. When the economic fraud is involved, the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with such matters. It is

¶61

¶62

CRL.P No. 530 of 2026

¶63

the duty of the Court to gain the confidence of the public to secure the ends of justice.

¶64

In the present case, the petitioner being accused

¶65

No.2 has committed heinous offence and economic fraud is involved in this case. Moreover, huge money is involved in this scam. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The petition stands rejected.

¶68

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶69

JS/-

Sri. Srinivas Rao Kaki v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivas Rao Kaki 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

Yakubh Vs the State of Karnataka

Choudri Ruhulla Vs State of Karnataka

Pavan M N Vs State by K R Pete Rural P S

Sri Sachindranath Tiwari @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Kiran S Vs the State by

Nishanth a L Vs the State of Karnataka