RAMAKRISHNA. K vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5726 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNA K
S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT NO.64
3RD FLOOR, 41ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN
JAYANAGAR 8TH CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUDHANVA D.S, ADV.)
AND:
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE
3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK
BMTC BUS STAND
DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY MS. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-1 IN SPL.C.C.NO.780/2022 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G ON THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.436A CR.PC AND CONSEQUENTLY
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused No.4 in Spl.C.C.No.780/2022 pending before the
Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
arising out of ECIR/BGZO/09/2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred as 'PML Act, 2002' for short) is
before this Court in this successive bail application filed under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent based on the FIR registered in Crime
No.69/2020 by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru, registered
a case in ECIR/BGZO/09/2020 for scheduled offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act, 2002, and in
the said case, petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 14.02.2022. After completing investigation,
prosecution has filed a complaint against 30 accused and
petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the complaint. His
earlier bail application was rejected before the Court of Special
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
Judge and subsequently, he had approached this Court in
Crl.P.No.2561/2022, which was dismissed by this Court on
24.06.2022. Thereafter, he had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8032/2022,
which was dismissed on 16.09.2022. Subsequently, petitioner
had once again approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5974/2023,
which was also dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 24.08.2023. Thereafter, once again he had
approached this Court in Crl.P.9930/2024, which was rejected
on 23.11.2024. Subsequently, he had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6/2025,
which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2026 with liberty
to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court, including
on medical grounds. It is under these circumstances, petitioner
had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in
Spl.C.C.No.780/2022 under Section 436A of Cr.P.C., which was
dismissed by the Trial Court on 02.04.2026. Therefore, he is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner aged
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
about 76 years, is in custody for the last more than 4 years 6
months. Maximum punishment for the alleged offences in the
present case is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since
the petitioner is in detention for more than 50% of the
maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and
also considering his age, prayer made by the petitioner for
grant of regular bail may be considered. He submits that
further proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.780/2022 has been stayed by
this Court in WP No.22532/2026 and therefore, the chances of
trial being completed and the case being disposed off in the
near soon is very remote. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who has
filed statement of objections opposing the petition submits that
petitioner had earlier approached this Court multiple times and
also thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and his
petitions were dismissed. She submits that under Section 436A
of Cr.P.C as a matter of right, an accused is not entitled for
bail. The allegations in the case are serious in nature.
Considering the same, his earlier bail applications were
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
rejected. It is also submitted that in the Special Leave to
Appeal filed earlier, a contention was raised that petitioner has
undergone 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment
prescribed for the alleged offences but the said ground was not
pressed and petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly,
she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Section 479 of BNSS, 2023, which is corresponding to
Section 436A of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
"479. Maximum period for which undertrial
prisoner can be detained.
(1) Where a person has, during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an
offence under any law (not being an offence for which
the punishment of death or life imprisonment has
been specified as one of the punishments under that
law) undergone detention for a period extending up to
one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment
specified for that offence under that law, he shall be
released by the Court on bail:
Provided that where such person is a first-time
offender (who has never been convicted of any
offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
the Court, if he has undergone detention for the
period extending up to one-third of the maximum
period of imprisonment specified for such offence
under that law:
Provided further that the Court may, after
hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, order the continued
detention of such person for a period longer than one-
half of the said period or release him on bail bond
instead of his bond:
Provided also that no such person shall in any
case be detained during the period of investigation,
inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of
imprisonment provided for the said offence under that
law.
Explanation.-In computing the period of
detention under this section for granting bail, the
period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding
caused by the accused shall be excluded.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section
(1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an
investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence
or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he
shall not be released on bail by the Court.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
(3) The Superintendent of jail, where the
accused person is detained, on completion of one-half
or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section
(1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an
application in writing to the Court to proceed under
sub-section (1) for the release of such person on
bail."
7. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 479 of BNSS,
2023, makes it very clear that where an accused has
undergone detention for a period extending upto one-half of
the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence,
he shall be released by the Court on bail.
8. The words used in the said provision of law is 'shall'.
However, Proviso to the said sub-section says that Court may,
after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such
a person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or
release him on bail bond instead of his bond.
9. In the case on hand, petitioner is in custody from
14.02.2022 onwards. As on this day, he is in custody for a
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
period of four years eight months twenty two days. Maximum
punishment for the alleged offences in the present case is
imprisonment for a period of seven years. It is brought to the
notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that
trial in Spl.C.C.No.780/2022 has been now stalled in view of
the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in WP No.22532/2026 on 22.07.2026. Therefore, the chances
of trial being completed and the case being disposed off in the
near soon is very remote.
10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at
paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
" 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea
for bail on the ground that the crime committed
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime".
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re-
inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons vs. Ors. in WPs
(Civil) No(s).406/2013 vide order dated 19.11.2024, has
held that beneficial provisions of Section 479 of BNSS, 2023,
shall apply to all under-trials in pending cases irrespective of
whether the case was registered against them prior to
01.07.2024 i.e., the date on which the new legislation has
come into force. In the said case, it is also observed that
deserving undertrials is required to be identified by the
Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) for the purpose of
enabling the Court to extend the benefit of the aforesaid
provision.
12. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others
vs. Union of India and Others - (2023) 12 SCC 1 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.326, has observed as
follows:-
"326. In our opinion, therefore, Section 436-A
needs to be construed as a statutory bail
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
provision and akin to Section 167 of the 1973
Code. Notably, the learned Solicitor General has
fairly accepted during the arguments and also
restated in the written notes that the mandate of
Section 167 of the 1973 Code would apply with
full force even to cases falling under Section 3 of
the 2002 Act, regarding money laundering
offences. On the same logic, we must hold that
Section 436-A of the 1973 Code could be
invoked by the accused arrested for the offence
punishable under the 2002 Act, being a statutory
bail."
13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
petitioner aged 76 years is also facing certain medical
conditions for which he needs urgent attention. Considering the
aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the
prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to
be answered affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the following order:-
14. The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed
to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.780/2022 pending before
the Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62058
CRL.P No. 5726 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010262552026
Bengaluru, arising out of ECIR/BGZO/09/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act, 2002,
subject to the following conditions:
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;
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;
c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar
offences in future;
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.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37