9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement of the petitioner was also recorded and admitted the fact that he had purchased the bungalow and car and also it is the case of the prosecution that he had indulged in siphoning off the amount of the depositors money. The brief summary of result of investigation under Section 50(3) of PML Act is also mentioned in paragraph 8 acquiring the properties in the name of his family members i.e., wife, son and also in the name of the car driver and also his friend and so also in the name of the Manager of KSRUCS and had indulged in transferring the property in the name of Ramathulla. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for bail since the complaint was filed on 07.02.2022 and 60 days has been lapsed cannot be accepted at this juncture when the investigation is still going on and the specific allegations are made that further investigation is pending and hence, the question of invoking Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. at this stage cannot be looked into and no such application is filed before the Trial Court and for the first time, raised said ground before this Court and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the bail on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this High Court granted bail and detention and deprivation of his liberty again for the said scheduled offence leading to offence under Section 3 of PML Act does not seem to be justified. The counsel also vehemently contend that the provisional order of attachment of the property of the petitioner is confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 09.02.2021 and his passport is also impounded and investigation has been completed in Cr. No. 185/2017 and charge-sheet also filed and this petitioner was also subjected to enquiry by the respondent on different dates and he is in judicial custody from 14.01.2022. The petitioner was in custody from 05.11.2018 to 07.02.2021 and again arrested on 05.01.2022 and his total detention is more than 2 years and he is aged about 56 years and not keeping good health and an allegation against this petitioner is that he being the Chairman of the co-operative society, he used the depositors money but he made sincere efforts to refund the deposits and his efforts resulted in refund of Rs. 35 lakh to the depositors and some of the complaints before the Consumer Forum are withdrawn hence, the rejection of the bail petition under Section 439 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused granted bail by a judicial Magistrate or the Session Court as the case may be in respect of the predicated offences ipso facto is entitled for grant of bail in respect of the offences under the Act. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there was a misappropriation of the amount by this petitioner and others to the tune of Rs. 281.14 crores and there were more than 26,000 depositors and their money has not been refunded. The properties attached is only to the tune of Rs. 31 crore and hence, when the misappropriation is to the tune of Rs. 281.14 crore, mere attachment of Rs. 31 crore cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The counsel also vehemently contend that the statement of this petitioner was also recorded and complaint was also filed and the offences are cognizable and non-bailable and the petitioner himself categorically admits that around 250 crore of principal amounts are yet to be refunded to the depositors of the co-operative society and till date, he could not make any tangible effort to repay the said amount. The counsel also vehemently contend that the depositors amount has been invested for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d involving a huge loss of investors' money seriously. Though further investigation is going on, as of now, the investigation discloses that the respondent played a key role in the promotion of the chit fund scam described supra, thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard-earned money and cancelled the bail. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the facts and circumstances of the case is aptly applicable to the case on hand and Apex Court taken note of the material on record and observed that since there is a huge amount of money belonging to the investors has been siphoned off, the High Court committed an error in granting bail in favour of the respondent. 10. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, earlier, the case has been registered against this petitioner in Cr. No. 185/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 408, 420 of IPC by the KSRUCS and the same has been investigated and charge-sheet also filed and bail was granted. It is also important to note that an application is filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakh was refunded and only Rs. 31 crore properties were attached but the amount involved in misappropriation and siphoning off the amount is more than Rs. 250 crore. It is also evident from the records that the properties were attached in the name of his family members and other office staff including the driver of the car and Manager and the same has been came out during the course of partial investigation and Apex Court also observed that if the respondent continues on bail, there is little chance of realizing any amount by selling the properties of the Tower Group of companies, since he may use unlawful tactics to keep prospective buyers away and also taken note of the fact that huge amount of money belonging to the investors has been siphoned off, under such circumstances, High Court should not have released the respondent on bail. In the case on hand also huge amount of money belonging to the innocent investors has been siphoned off by this petitioner along with other Directors of the bank. When such being the material on record, and investigation also discloses the siphoning off the huge amount of Rs. 250 crore and Trial Court also while considering the bail petition taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
