1. This petition is filed by the defacto-complainant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancelling the bail granted by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to the respondent No.2-accused in Crl.Misc.No.11914/2023 on 13.12.2023 arising out of Crime No.92/2022 registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11353/2023, pending on the file of IV ACMM Bengaluru and remand respondent No.2 to the custody.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the Additional SPP and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the petitioner/defacto-complainant, the Vijayanagar police registered the FIR in Crime No.92/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against respondent No.2 and subsequently, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. It is also case of the petitioner that the police were unable to arrest the accused- respondent No.2, therefore, they filed absconding charge sheet against him. Later the accused-respondent No.2 filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Subsequently, respondent No.2 approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.6837/2023 which came to be dismissed by this court on 16.08.2023 holding that respondent No.2 is required for custodial interrogation as he has involved in money laundering activities. Crores of rupees have been transferred from the account of the accused to third parties and received money, therefore, petition came to be dismissed.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the anticipatory bail, the police arrested the accused-respondent No.2 and he was remanded to the judicial custody. His bail petition filed before the Magistrate has been rejected and hence, he has approached the Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed in Crl.Misc.No.4621/2023 dated 26.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto-complainant approached this Court for cancellation of bail on various grounds.

5. It is contended by the petitioner counsel that there is sufficient material placed on record to show that the accused has misappropriated crores of rupees of the company by opening the account in contravention of the law. The same was not considered by the Sessions Judge while granting bail.

6. The petitioner counsel further contended that even though the High Court observed in the Crl.P.No.6837/2023 while rejecting the anticipatory bail stating that the accused had published some articles in the name of the Court by posting the video in the social media which goes to show the conduct of the accused and on that ground also the petitioner is not entitled for bail. The petitioner counsel further contended that the case was registered on 3.8.2022. The accused never appeared before the Investigating Officer and assisted for investigation. The investigation was done in his absence and on that ground, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail which was not considered by the Sessions Judge while granting bail.

7. The petitioner further contended that the accused was arrested on 25.11.2023. He was remanded to the judicial custody, he was not been produced before the Court on the contrary that he was admitted to the hospital by the jail Authorities and his health condition was stable at the time of arrest. But by showing the influence in winning over the jail authorities, he has got admitted to the hospital. This aspect has not been taken note by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel further contended that this accused without assisting the Investigating Officer went on filing successive bail applications and escaped from the clutches of law. He did not produce any document for having transacted in the name of company to the tune of crores of rupees. On that ground, he is not entitled for bail. It is further contended that while rejecting the bail, the Court has held that his custody is very much necessary for the Investigating Officer for investigating the matter and to file additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The same was not considered by the Sessions Judge. It is also observed by the High Court that the accused is required for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth and the Investigating Officer while producing the accused with remand application, he has not sought for custody which shows it is a collusion and influenced by the accused.

8. The petitioner counsel further contended that the ED (Directorate of Enforcement) issued notice to the accused for calling explanation about crores of rupees. But, he did not give any explanation and Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter properly since the accused is involved in money laundering activities. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

9. It is also contended that accused misused the PAN card, KYC details of the company belong to other Directors and committed serious economic offence and he has transferred Rs.10 crores. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. But the Sessions Court has wrongly granted bail. It is further contended that the accused is highly influenced person. He pressurised the Investigating Officer not to seek police custody. The Investigating Officer also collected FSL report to show the accused himself opened the account in the name of company and misused the funds to the extent of crores of rupees. The Sessions Judge ignored the observation of High Court in respect of requirement of custodial interrogation mainly for the purpose of finding out money laundering activities. The accused is also winning over the law implement agency and managing the Investigating Officer not to file application for police custody. He also threatened the complainant and prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that the accused has published an article in social media against the court and disobeyed the order of High Court and did not surrender himself before the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge without considering the gravity of the offence and the accused is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer for investigation, granting bail is perverse finding, hence, liable to be set aside.

10. It is further contended that the Trial Court not considered the material on record while granting bail which is liable to be cancelled. The Sessions Court granted bail holding that the accused was in custody, Investigating Officer not filed any application seeking custody is not suffice to justify to grant bail which is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi reported in AIR 2015 SC 3703 and Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2005 SC 3490 and hence, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of granting bail and committing him to the custody.

11. The respondent No.2 appeared through the counsel, filed statement of objections and contended that there is no material available and petition is filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail except the earlier order passed by the Sessions Judge and High Court. The Trial Court exercised the discretionary power while granting bail to the accused, therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be acceptable that the accused has misappropriated crores of rupees by opening the account in the name of the company. The grounds made out by the petitioner at paragraph Nos.13 to 18 are all pertaining to the order passed by this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application. Though this Court has held that the petitioner required for custodial interrogation, but the Investigating Officer has not filed any application for seeking police custody. It is further denied that the accused misused the PAN and KYC of the company and other details and further contended that the Investigating Officer has produced the statement of accounts of Axis Bank belonging to the accused from 11.01.2018 for transferring the amounts. It is further contended that the credit and debit in the statement of accounts of the M/s. Eagle Sight Media Pvt. Ltd. in the ICICI Bank and account of the respondent in AXIS bank have no access. In fact, the case of the complainant is that he was unaware of the opening and operation of the account in the name of M/s. Eagle Sight Media Pvt. Ltd. until he receive the notice from Enforcement Department (ED). The money laundering offences cannot be included and police have no power to investigate and file the charge sheet. It has to be filed before the Special Court. The police have no Authority to register the FIR in money laundering case. Therefore, it is impermissible for the complainant to take such a contention for taking the accused for custody for the money laundering activities. In fact, the complaint as well as the petition for cancellation of bail in respect of notice issued to the complainant by ED and observation made by the Court for rejecting the anticipatory bail need not be considered for cancellation of regular bail. The order of the Sessions Judge for granting bail need not make any reference in the order about the observation of the High Court.

12. It is further contended that M/s. Eagle Sight Media Pvt. Ltd. company incorporated with the complainant- petitioner and respondent No.2, they are promoters/Directors with initial share capital Rs.32,40,000/- on 11.10.2013. The current account was opened on 24.10.2013 in Corporation Bank, Madiwala Branch. On 26.02.2018, there was serious differences between the parties and a share purchase agreement was signed between the Directors and other share holders and the accused agreed to clear the outstanding dues to the creditors and purchased the shares of the petitioner who was invested Rs.50 lakhs on 24.03.2014, Rs.70 lakhs on 28.03.2014 and the share purchase agreement dated 26.02.2018 two cheques were issued and drawn on Axis Bank for Rs.4,54,15,000/- issued in the name of complainant and Rs.1,20,00,000/- in the name of one Nanjundaiah Mahendra. An assurance letter dated 21.07.2017 were entrusted to Escrow Agent one Ganesh Basavaraj. On 03.12.2018, Nanjundaiah Mahendra, who is one of the share holder associated with the complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs.1,20,00,000/- which is C.C.No.6268/2018 and petitioner also filed complaint on 10.01.2019 for dishonour of cheque for Rs.4,54,15,000/- against the respondent in C.C.No.4842/2018 and accused also filed a complaint for dishonour of cheque against the complainant on 03.04.2019 for Rs.1 crore. The accused also filed another complaint against complainant and father for dishonour of cheque for Rs.50 lakhs.

13. It is further contended by the respondent that on 11.09.2019, the petitioner lodged a private complaint against accused in P.C.R.No.11527/2019 for cheating of Rs.10,84,00,000/- and was diverted the company fund. The complaint was referred to the High Grounds Police, the same was registered in Crime No.8/2020 which is pending and the accused was on bail in the said case. On 29.01.2020, the accused filed a complaint against the complainant in the High Grounds police station which is registered in Crime No.10/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC which is pending for investigation. On 05.09.2022, K. Babu, the employee of BTv lodged a complaint before High Grounds police against one Mahendra, Arun and others. A case in Crime No.134/2022 was registered which was stayed by the High Court. On the same day, the petitioner also filed a complaint/counter complaint against the accused in Crime No.135/2022 and the police have filed 'B' final report.

14. It is further contended that on 24.01.2022, the original suit No.584/2022 filed by Mahendra, the father of the complainant on behalf of M/s. Eagle Sight Media Pvt. Ltd. against M/s. Eagle Sight Telemedia, BTv Kannada Pvt. Ltd., G.M. Kumar, Manjula the wife of G.M.Kumar, pending before the Civil Court (C.C.H-10), making verbatim complaint in Crime No.8/2020 which is pending in O.S.No.584/2022. The petitioner and the accused were litigating from the year 2019 and several cases were also pending before the Court.

15. On 21.07.2022, the ED issued notice to the complainant and the accused calling to explain transactions about the credit and debit of Rs.5 crores in the account of the company at ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch. On 03.08.2022, the complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the accused by taking advantage of notice issued by the ED. The material collected during the investigation do not make out a case either cheating or misappropriation of the funds belongs to company. The company not suffered any financial loss. The transactions of Rs.5 crores from the account of Iqbal Hussain, N.N. Granites, N.N. Stones and debit of Rs.4 crores from one Vinod Kumar and Rs.1 crore from the personal account of the accused to Vinod Kumar are not connected with the company transaction. Rs.5 crores is the matter of investigation by ED and money laundering Act. The local police cannot investigate the matter and cannot register the FIR against the accused. The State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail but the complainant himself opposed the anticipatory bail and also seeking cancellation of bail on flimsy ground. There was no necessity for custodial interrogation. The accused opened the account in the Bank and due to rivalry, the complaint has been filed and the petitioner not made out any justifiable ground to cancel the bail and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

16. In support of the arguments, both the learned counsels have relied upon various judgments. The petitioner counsel has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:

1) Centrum Financial Services Limited vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2022) 13 SCC 286.

2) Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and Another in Crl.A.No.689/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1348 of 2014).

17. On the other hand, the respondent counsel has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

1) Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Crl.A.No(s).-----of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No(s). 786/2024;

2) Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc. vs. The State of Telangana and another in Crl.A.Nos.1974-1975 of 2019;

3) Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 1508;

4) Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349.

18. Learned Additional SPP and learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the accused is not cooperating with the Investigation Officer for the investigation and now CCB has taken up for further investigation.

19. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgments.

20. The point that arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner made out sufficient ground to show the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail is deserved to be cancelled "

21. Before going to the merits of the case in respect of grounds urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is worth to mention certain principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail and for cancellation of bail.

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Sharma case stated supra and has held at paragraph No.12 of the judgment as under:

"12. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him: (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed".

23. In another judgment in the case of P.-- Appellant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph Nos.15, 25 and 26 which are as under:

"15. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee after referring to several precedents, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

"9. …..However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down

in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated below:

(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.

(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.

We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.

26. Keeping the aforesaid parameters to be borne in mind when dealing with a petition where not only has the order granting bail been assailed on the ground of perversity and illegality, supervening circumstances have been pleaded by the appellant that justify interference by this Court, we may now proceed to deal with the instant case."

In the above said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of the accused.

24. In another judgment in the case of X.. Appellant vs. State of Telangana and Another reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the similar view by relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and CBI vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296 (SCC pp. 303-04) and para 23 reads as under:

"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

25. In the another judgment in the case of Subhendu Mishra stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has once again considered the Dolat Ram case and held that the Court cannot ordinarily cancel the bail until the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram case.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centrum Financial Services Limited stated supra, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cancelled the bail which was granted by the High Court and has held at paragraph Nos.35, 36 and 37 which are as under:

"35. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court where a court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. The appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.

36. From the aforesaid it emerges that while releasing Respondent 2 on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation; the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences have been committed through shell companies and creating the false/ forged documents and/or misusing the PAN cards, Aadhar cards and KYCs of the employees and showing them as Directors of the fake and shell companies. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has not at all considered and taken into consideration the status report and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order¹ passed by the High Court releasing Respondent 2 on bail is unsustainable as the High Court while releasing Respondent 2 on bail has not exercised the jurisdiction judiciously and has not considered the relevant factors which are required to be considered while grant of bail.

37. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order¹ passed by the High Court releasing Respondent 2 on bail deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now on quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order! passed by the High Court releasing Respondent 2 on bail and consequently the bail being set aside, Respondent 2-accused to surrender before the court/Jail Authority concerned forthwith. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."

27. By keeping the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind and by coming to the case of the prosecution and the complainant is that the accused- respondent No.2 said to be one of the Director of the company where the complainant is also one of the Director. Subsequently, there was various disputes between both the Directors and litigations pending between the parties in Civil Court and a case registered against the respondent in Crime No.8/2020 pending before the High Grounds police and charge sheet not yet filed. The accused also filed the complaint against the petitioner in the same Police Station in Crime No.10/2020 which is also pending that the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and other two cases were registered in Crime Nos.134/2022 and 135/2022 and those cases are also pending and stay has been said to be granted by the High Court. In the meanwhile, this accused-respondent No.2 said to be created a false document, the minutes of the meeting or Board resolution of Directors authorising the accused to open an account and the said resolution was not signed by the complainant, it was signed by the accused himself by creating the Board resolution and he himself authorised for opening of the account and Rs.1 lakh has been transferred for opening of the new account in the name of the company. Then with the third parties namely N.M. Granites, he has received Rs.4 crores on the same day on 11.01.2018 and on the very same day, he received Rs.1 crore from Iqbal Hussain and on very same day, he has transferred the entire amount of Rs.5 crores to one Vinod Kumar. The credit and debit transactions took place on the same day regarding transaction of Rs.5 crores without the knowledge of the complainant and by illegal means, the accused involved in money laundering activities. The Directorate of Enforcement said to be issued notice to the complainant and accused which was came to the knowledge of the complainant regarding illegal transaction and fabrication of documents by the accused, hence, complaint came to be filed for misappropriation of company amount of Rs.1 lakh creating the documents, involving in money laundering business filed the complaint to the police regarding forging the signature of the complainant and creating the documents for opening of the accounts in the name of the company and transacted Rs.5 crores and thereafter there was no transaction. The complaint came to be filed against the accused before the Vijayanagar Police and an FIR has been registered in this case.

28. Subsequently, the police investigated the matter as the police unable to arrest the accused and the police have filed absconding charge sheet against the accused. Later, the accused approached the District Court for granting anticipatory bail which came to be dismissed and later the accused approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6837/2023 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which also came to be dismissed by this Court holding that the accused involved in various money laundering activities and involvement of the forgery and creation of documents, therefore his presence is required for custodial interrogation and he is not available for arrest even though he said to be went to the same police station and threatened the Police Officer for registering the case against him, but the police have not taken any action against him and also not attempted to arrest the accused and the accused said to be very influential person and said to be running a TV channel. After rejection of the anticipatory bail, the police were able to arrest the accused and he was produced before the Magistrate and he said to be remanded to the judicial custody. Later, the Magistrate rejected the bail petition under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he has approached the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.P.No.11914/2023 dated 13.12.2023 which came to be allowed and granted bail to the respondent No.2-accused which is under challenge.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though there was serious allegations made against the accused, the Sessions Judge not considered any of the gravity of the offence and simply granted bail even without any conditions except for executing the bond and he should appear before the Court, not to threaten any witnesses and shall not indulge in similar offence. The order of the Sessions Judge reads as under:

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby Allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on in Cr.No.92/2022 C.C.No.11353/2023 for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406 of IPC of respondent police pending on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:-

1) The petitioner shall obtain a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates without fail, except in unavoidable circumstances.

3) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

4) The petitioner shall not get himself involved in similar nature of offences.

5) The petitioner shall produce documents regarding address proof before the lower court.

6) The petitioner shall not leave the Jurisdiction without prior permission of the court.

If any violation of any conditions will amounts to cancellation of bail automatically."

30. On perusal of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge, absolutely there is no condition for appearing before the Investigating Officer for any further investigation and for the purpose of obtaining the specimen signature for the purpose of referring the admitted and disputed signatures to the forensic science lab (FSL) for getting handwriting expert opinion as there was serious allegation that he has created the Board resolution and forged the signature of the complainant and he himself authorised for opening of the account. Therefore, the specimen signature of the accused required to be taken by the Investigating Officer for further investigation where the learned Sessions Judge has not passed any condition for his appearance before the Investigating Officer and for taking the specimen signature.

31. Though the police arrested the accused and produced before the Court on 25.11.2023, the accused said to be not in jail, but the very same day he went to the hospital in the name of ill health and heart disease and admitted in the hospital till his release. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner counsel that the accused influenced the jail authorities and not even a single day, he has spent in jail, but he was managed to keep himself away from the jail and got admitted to the hospital even though there is no serious illness as per the medical record. It is gimmick of the accused and made drama for suffering ill health and went to the hospital and obtained bail and the Sessions Judge not considered the case on merit while granting bail except holding that the police have not sought for police custody for interrogation and he is in judicial custody from 25.11.2023, therefore, he has granted bail. Absolutely, there is no reference in respect of observation made by this court while rejecting the anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.6837/2023 and the Sessions Judge ignored the observation and requirement of the presence of the accused for further investigation and also the learned Judge ignored that charge sheet was one of the absconding charge sheet filed by the police.

32. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that this accused was involved in Crime No.8/2020 registered by the High Grounds police and pending for investigation where a similar dispute and allegation made against the accused for various offences including 420, 468, 471 and other offences and the accused being an habitual offender and continuously involved in creation of document, fabricating the documents forging the signatures, misappropriating the company funds in various cases registered against him. Though a counter case also registered by the accused against the complainant which is also pending.

33. The learned Senior counsel also contended that the respondent No.2 already resigned from the post of Director and after three years of the resignation, the ED issued notice regarding transfer of Rs.5 crores. If the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent is acceptable that the accused already resigned from the post of Director, the question of signing the Board resolution and authorisation given to himself for opening the account does not arise. It is very much pertinent to note when the accused is already resigned from the post of Directors and signing the Board resolution, producing the authorisation, opening the account definitely attracts for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of IPC and forging the signature of the complainant by impersonation also attracts Section 419 of IPC. These aspects are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2.

34. Of course, the learned Senior counsel argued that Rs.5 crores has been received by the accused from third party one Iqbal and GN Granites and transferred to one Vinod Kumar. The said amount is not belong to the company. Therefore, it is contended there is offence committed by the accused by cheating the company. The contention of the learned Senior counsel cannot be acceptable for the reasons that the money was received by the accused from third parties for the company account opened by the accused and without consent of the other Director has transferred the amount to some other third party-Vinod Kumar on the same day or within a day transacting Rs.5 crores without any contract or business of the company and the accused misused the company name for the purpose of money laundering activities and it is nothing to do with the business of the company and without the knowledge of the complainant who is the Director of the company, the accused himself created the Board resolution, created the authorization in his name and opened the separate account in the company name and involved in the money laundering activities. Therefore, misusing the company name, money received for the company has been transferred by him without the knowledge of the complainant who is the Director also amounts to a misappropriation and involving in illegal activities in the name of the company. Therefore, the Directorate of Enforcement rightly issued notice to the complainant as well as to an accused and the complainant already submitted his reply to the ED authorities. This aspect has been not at all considered by the Trial Court while granting bail.

35. Of course, the investigation under the Money Laundering Act shall be conducted by the E. D. Authorities and they have to investigate the matter under the money laundering Act. However, if any information collected by the Investigating Officer in respect of money laundering activities, it has to be reported to the ED authorities by the concerned Investigating Officer, but the Trial Court has not considered whether further investigation is required or not while granting bail and ignored the illegal money laundering activities of the accused.

36. During the course of arguments, the Additional SPP and learned High Court Government Pleader also submitted that the accused/respondent No.2 is not at all cooperating with the Investigating Officer and he is always avoiding his appearance before the police and therefore, now the further investigation is transferred to the City Crime Police (CCB Police), the further investigation is under progress.

37. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused is very influenced person running a TV channel and involved in various crimes, forgery, cheating and illegal activities and the police have not able to take any proper action against him and even the accused said to be went to the Vijayanagar police and threatened the Police Officer for registering the case against him and the police have not able to take any action against him.

38. That apart, the police also not trying to seek police custody when he was produced before the Court, therefore, the SPP issued notice to the DCP, West for not seeking any police custody for custodial interrogation in this case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the complainant trying to file application for police custody, the learned Magistrate not entertained the same and the Investigating Officer not chosen to seek any police custody as the accused said to be a highly influenced person. It is also brought to the notice of this court by the petitioner-complainant that the accused was already cheated more than 10 crores of rupees and he has been misappropriated by forging the signature of the complainant in Crime No.8/2020 which is pending for investigation.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the list of cases where the accused facing criminal cases as well as civil cases which are as under:

"LIST OF CASES PENDING BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE COURTS

i] CRIME.No.8/2020 State by High Grounds Police Station C/w P.C.R.No.11527/2019, 4711 Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BANGALORE, Complainant: Ashwin Mahendra Vs Accused: G.M.Kumar.

ii] O.S.No.5617/2020 City Civil Court, Bangalore. Plaintiff: Ashwin Mahendra Vs Defendant: M/s. Eagle Sight Media Private Limited & Others.

iii) C.C.No.4842/2019 22ND Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BANGALORE. Complainant: Ashwin Mahendra Vs Accused: G.M.Kumar.

iv) C.C.No.2182/2019 Small Causes Court Hall.No.22, Bangalore: G.M.Kumar Vs Ashwin Mahendra.

v] C.C.No.2210/2021 Small Causes Court Hall.No.26, Bangalore: G.M.Kumar Vs Ashwin Mahendra.

vi] O.S.584/2022, City Civil Court, Bangalore (CCH-10), Mr.Ashwin Mahendra for M/s. Eaglesight Media Private Limited Vs M/s. EagleSight Telemedia Private Limited and Others."

40. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by forging the signature of the complainant, the accused had 453 bank transactions in the name of the company and misappropriated Rs.10,84,00,000/- and a serious allegation has been made against the accused by the complainant. He said to be created false documents, started business in the similar name of the company of the complainant, that is the matter of investigation in Crime No.8/2020 and cases are already pending before the Court. But the fact remains, the accused is a habitual offender, continuously involved in illegal activities, money laundering activities, cheating, forgery etc. and also he said to be most influenced person by using the name of the TV channel, therefore the regular police also afraid to summon him for the purpose of further investigation.

41. Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer when arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody but he has failed to inform the ED authorities about the arrest of the accused in this case and also not sought for any police custody for further investigation which reveals there is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer for dereliction of duty and therefore, now the CCB police took up for further investigation. Otherwise, it is not possible for the regular police for investigating the matter where the accused is very highly influenced person and the petitioner is likely to influence and threaten the witnesses including the official witnesses and he will be hurdle/obstacle for further investigation of the matter by CCB police if he is on bail.

42. The petitioner was released on bail in other offences and during the bail, he has misused the liberty and further committed similar offences and he is also involved in money laundering activities and he has no respect for law or fear of law. Therefore, while considering the bail application, the Sessions Court has totally ignored the fact of the case and seriousness of the allegation against the accused person and simply granted bail by using the discretionary power. The Sessions Court totally ignored the allegations and observation made by this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail mainly for the purpose of requirement of the accused for the purpose of custodial interrogation for unearthing the truth, money laundering activities, required for obtaining specimen signature and for the purpose of any recovery. Here in this case, totally there is no further investigation made by the police and not permitted the police for the presence of the accused for any further investigation in the impugned order under challenge. Therefore, in my view, the order of bail passed by the Sessions Court is nothing but perverse and ignoring the fact and seriousness of the case and also allegation of money laundering activities, forgery, misappropriation etc. Therefore, the order under challenge, is perverse and liable to be set aside.

43. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that granting bail is a Rule and dismissal is exception under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., but the Court require to consider the allegation, misusing of liberty by the accused while on bail and requirement of presence of the accused for investigation for the purpose of recovery, obtaining specimen signature etc and the Court should normally not interfere in cancellation of bail, except in special circumstances, if the accused is highly influenced person and he will misuse the liberty and commit habitually similar offences. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered for granting and cancelling the bail in the above said decisions which is applicable to the case on hand, where the accused- respondent No.2 definitely misusing the liberty of bail committing similar offences misappropriation of the huge crores of money, forging the signatures, involving in money laundering activities and more fully influencing the witnesses and also the police officials including the Investigating Officers. The respondent not to be released on bail until completion of the further investigation by the Higher Police Investigating authorities like CCB police or any other agency. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Himanshu Sharma case and in the catena of decisions that merely some cases registered against the accused, that itself is not a ground for cancelling the bail, if the order of bail passed by the Session Judge by giving the proper reason by analysing the merits of the case. But here in this case, the learned Sessions Judge not at all considered the gravity of the offence and other averments made in the charge sheet and requirement of the custodial interrogation of the accused for the further investigation. That apart the accused/respondent No.2 violated the conditions of bail by not cooperating with the Investigation Agency as per the submission of Additional SPP. Therefore, as per the order of the Sessions Judge, the bail order automatically get cancelled.

44. Further more, the ED Authorities shall register a case against respondent No.2 by taking the case in Crime No.8/2020 registered by High Grounds Police station as predicate offence and take the matter for investigation in respect of Money Laundering Activities of accused/respondent No.2.

45. The Investigating Officer could have intimated the ED authorities about the arrest of the accused, but it was not done. The Investigating Officer also not tried to examine the said Iqbal and Vinod Kumar who was involved in transfer of crores of money while conducting further investigation since they also involved in the Money Laundering activities. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge for granting bail in Crl.Misc.No.11914/2023 dated 13.12.2023 deserves to be set aside.

46. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass following

ORDER

Accordingly, the petition filed by the defacto- complainant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The bail granted by the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.11914/2023 dated 13.12.2023 arising out of Crime No.92/2022 of Vijayanagar Police is hereby set aside.

The CCB Police is hereby directed to apprehend the respondent No.2 and remand him to custody by producing before the Magistrate.

The Investigating Officer either by Vijayanagar Police or CCB Police are directed to intimate the ED Authorities for taking action against respondent No.2 in respect of involvement of the accused in money laundering case as observed by this Court at paragraph No.43 of this order.