Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 531 (KAR)

Babulal Parashurampura v. State

2014-05-22

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2014
ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Sri Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in the background that they are successful businessmen and are living as a joint family. It transpires that their house was raided by the Gandhinagar Police, Bellary, and it was found that there was a large amount of cash which exceeded Rs. 8 crores in the possession of the petitioners, apart from shares and other materials in respect of large bank deposits. The same were taken into custody and the Police have initiated proceedings alleging offences under various provisions of law including the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961; the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apart from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. It is in this background that the petitioners had approached the Court below seeking anticipatory bail, which has been rejected on the footing that the petitioners are capable of hampering the investigation and tampering with evidence and that reports were awaited from the Reserve Bank of India and the Income Tax Department for the prosecution to take further steps in the matter and that since a large volume of material had been seized at the time of raid, it would require a close perusal and unless the petitioners co-operate in the investigation, no further progress could take place and hence, the Court below has formed an opinion that enlarging the petitioners or granting the petitioners anticipatory bail would only enable them to keep out of the reach of law and hence had proceeded to reject the application. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that admittedly more than a sum of Rs. 8 crores in hard cash has been seized. It is in the interest of the petitioners to safeguard their money. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that admittedly more than a sum of Rs. 8 crores in hard cash has been seized. It is in the interest of the petitioners to safeguard their money. It is also his case that the entire amount of cash that has been seized can be accounted for and that they are Income tax assesses and they have nothing to fear insofar as the allegations under the various provisions of law are concerned and it is only an apprehension that on the pretext of long drawn out investigation, the petitioners may be indefinitely taken into custody, the petitioners had approached the Court below for anticipatory bail and that their apprehension continues and hence, the present petition. 4. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that even a days' custody is sufficient to damage the clean reputation that the petitioners carry and their image would be severely tarnished in the event of any such arrest and hence, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioners may be placed on such terms as deemed fit in considering their case for anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor however would raise serious objection to any such relief being granted as it is not only the cash that has been seized but also other incriminating documents which can hardly be explained by the petitioners and therefore, any lenience shown would only enable the petitioners to keep out of the reach of the law and hence, seeks time to file objections to the petition. 6. However, having regard to the fact that a large sum of money which cannot be said to be a mean amount by any standards has been seized and which the petitioners claim that it is in their own interest to safeguard the same, and that they are not likely to abscond as they have a reputation to maintain and further that since the petitioners claim that they are in a position to explain the sources of their wealth and are in a position to assist the investigation in their procedures and undertake to co-operate with the Investigating Authorities in all respects, no injustice would be caused nor would the investigation be prejudiced if the petitioners are granted bail on terms. The petition is allowed. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing self-bond for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, with two solvent sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Authorities as and when required for enquiry. (ii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court. (iii) On further investigation, if it is found that there is indeed substance in the allegations brought against the petitioners, it is open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail and for such other directions.