KABC010090942024
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2024
Present:
Shri Muralidhara Pai B.
B.Com., LL.B.

Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

Crl. Misc. No. 3223/2024
Petitioner
:
Manjunath Melkundi,
Aged bout 36 years,
House No. 1-891/11C-4,
Chamundeshwari Nagar,
Near Vergis Building,
Kalaburagi – 585102.
(By Sri Jeevan J., Advocate)
Vs.

Respondent
:
Assistant Director,
Enforcement of Directorate,
Bengaluru Zonal Office (2)(1),
BMTC ‘B’ Block, 3rd Floor,
Shanthinagar, K.H.Road,
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 27.
[By Sri I.S. Pramod Chandra,
Special Public Prosecutor]
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
2
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code praying for anticipatory bail and to release
him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with
ECIR/BZGO/68/2022 registered by the Respondent, in the
interest of justice.

2.

The Respondent has filed objection to the petition.

3.

Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned
Special Public Prosecutor.
4.

The
following
points
would
arise
for
the
consideration of this Court:
5.

1.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail?

2.

What Order?

The findings of this Court on the above points are
under:
Point No.1:-
In the Negative;
Point No.2:-
As per final order;
for the following:
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
3
REASONS
6.

Point No.1:
Admittedly, initially Kalburgi Chowk
Police had registered in Crime No. 48/2022 against one
Veeresh and others
for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420, 34 of IPC in connection
with alleged corrupt practices committed in the examination
conducted
to
545
PSI
posts.

On
completion
of
the
investigation therein, the jurisdictional police have laid a
charge sheet for the offenses punishable under Sections 109,
114, 119, 120B, 201, 202, 204, 212, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468,
471, 477A read with Section 34, 36, 37 & 149 of IPC and
Sections 7, 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
7.

It is also admitted that several other cases had
been registered at Kalburgi and Bengaluru in connection with
alleged
corrupt practices in the examination for PSI posts.

Based on the cases in Crime No. 60/2022 of High Grounds
Police Station and Crime No. 48/2022 of Kalburgi Chowk
Police Station, the Respondent Authority registered a report
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
4
in ECIR/BGZO/68/2022 on 4.8.2022 and took up the
investigation for the offense of money laundering.
8.

The Petitioner herein is one of the accused in the
predicate offense. The allegation against the Petitioner is that
he along with another accused opened various bank accounts
in the name of candidates and his associates and operated
them for their personal gains by investing in mutual funds
and stock market.
Respondent
After registration of the report, the
Authorities
have
conducted
search
at
the
premises of key accused persons including the Petitioner
herein and seized several documents claiming that there are
incriminating materials to establish the offense of money
laundering. Admittedly, the objection filed by the Petitioner
against such action of the Respondent came to be rejected.
9.

The Petitioner has come up with this petition
praying for anticipatory bail in the case registered by the
Respondent Authority on the ground that the investigation of
predicate offense is still in nascent stage and that he was
never involved in any of the alleged crime.

He has further
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
5
stated that he has been granted bail in predicate offense by
the Court of Sessions Judge, Kalburgi and that as per the
conditions of the said bail he is not permitted to leave the
jurisdiction of the said Court.

He has
stated that though
there are 34 accused in predicate offense, the Respondent
Authorities have seized the documents of only two persons
including that of the Petitioner and that such an action shows
he being targeted by the prosecution with malafide intention.
He has contended that there is no prima-facie ingredients to
invoke Section 3 of PML Act in the case.

As such he has
prayed to allow the petition on the ground that he is ready to
abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
10.

Admittedly, the Petitioner herein is one of the
accused i.e. Accused No.24 in the predicate offense and a case
in Spl.C.C. No. 7/2022 is pending against him before the
Court Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalburgi in
connection with the case registered in Crime No. 48/2022 of
Kalburgi Chowk Police Station. If we take into consideration
the offenses alleged therein, it is to be held that the
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
6
Respondent Authority is justified in registering a case in
ECIR/BGZO/68/2022 for the offenses relating to money
laundering. Further, the said case is under investigation. As
such the contention of the Petitioner touching merits of the
said case cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceeding.
11.

The
Petitioner
has
maintained
this
petition
praying for anticipatory bail on the ground that the trial for
the predicate offense is going on and his presence is much
required to defend him in the said case.

He has further
stated that he would be denied of his rights in the event of his
arrest by the Respondent, who might used such opportunity
to deter him from attending the proceeding in predicate
offense.

However, the Petitioner has not come up with the
basis for such apprehension.

On the other hand, these
contentions of the Petitioner are prima-facie imaginary and
baseless.
12.

In the petition, the Petitioner has stated about the
Respondent having issued summons to him under Section 50
of PML Act calling upon him to appear for inquiry on
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
7
203.2024 and 28.3.2024 as well as he having not appeared
before the Respondent in pursuance of such summons. The
Petitioner has assigned the reason of conditions in the bail
granted in predicate offense as the reason for not attending
for inquiry.
13.

The Petitioner has produced a copy of Order dated
5.1.2023 passed in Spl.C.C. No. 7/2022 by the Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Kalburgi before this Court. Under
the said Order the concerned court granted bail to several
accused persons including the Petitioner herein in the
predicate offense. One of the conditions therein is that the
accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without
prior permission of the said Court till the disposal of the case
or until further orders.

It is well known that the Courts
imposed such conditions while granting the
bail so as to
ensure regular attendance of the accused before it and that he
will not abscond from its jurisdiction.

The said condition
makes it clear that the restriction therein is only for leaving
the jurisdiction without permission and that it is always open
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
8
for the accused persons to seek permission of the Court to
leave its jurisdiction by showing valid reason and after taking
prior permission.

The contention raised by the Petitioner
herein goes to show that he is trying to use such condition in
the bail order as a shield and to avoid appearing for inquiry
before the Respondent Authority.
14.

Admittedly, initially the Respondent had issued a
summons to the Petitioner herein calling upon him to appear
before them for inquiry on 20.3.2024. The Petitioner did not
attend such inquiry on the ground that as per the conditions
of the bail he is not permitted to leave the District of Kalburgi
and ground of ill-health.

In the said circumstances, the
Respondent issued one more summons calling upon the
Petitioner to attend for inquiry on 28.3.2024. Even on that
day the Petitioner did not appear before the Respondent by
raising same contentions. The Petitioner has produced a copy
of his e-mail dated 27.3.2024 sent to the Respondent
informing them about his inability to appear for inquiry on
28.3.2024. In the said e-mail the Petitioner has stated that
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
9
the case in Spl.C.C. No. 7/2022 is a scheduled on 2.4.2024
and that he would seek permission of the Court to appear
before the Respondent. The information available in CIS goes
to show that on 2.4.2024 the Petitioner was absent before the
Court in Spl.C.C. No. 7/2022 and that no application had
been moved before the Court seeking permission for him to
leave the jurisdiction for the purpose of
attending inquiry
before the Respondent. The Petitioner has filed the present
petition on 1.4.2024.

The information available in the CIS
goes to show that the Petitioner has not moved necessary
application before concerned court till 29.5.2024.
15.

It is to be noted that the Respondent Authority
has issued the summons to the Petitioner to appear before
them for inquiry by exercising the power conferred under the
provisions of PML Act.

As such it was the duty of the
Petitioner to comply with such direction except under
unavoidable circumstances.

The facts of this case and the
materials available on record do not justify the failure on the
part of the Petitioner to appear before the Respondent in
Crl.Misc.No. 3223/2024
10
response to the summons issued by them.

On the other
hand, the conduct and the contentions of the Petitioner go to
show that he has deliberately avoided to appear before the
Respondent without justifiable cause and thereby he has
failed to cooperate with the investigation in the case. In the
above circumstances, this Court holds that the Petitioner has
not made out valid ground to extend him benefit of
anticipatory bail as prayed in the petition. Hence, Point No.1
is answered in the negative.
16.

Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on the
computer, typed by her, then corrected and pronounced by
me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of June, 2024).

(Muralidhara Pai B.)
Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.