The Karnataka High Court, in a landmark decision, rejected the bail plea of K. Ramakrishna, accused of orchestrating a financial fraud amounting to ₹1,544 crores through Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank. Justice H.P. Sandesh ruled that the benefit of bail under Section 479(1) of the BNSS, 2023, cannot be extended to individuals facing multiple cases and serious allegations.
Background
The case, listed as Criminal Petition No. 9930/2024, was filed by Ramakrishna, who has been in judicial custody since February 14, 2022. Represented by Advocate Balakrishna M.R., the petitioner invoked Section 479(1) of BNSS, citing a prolonged custody period of over two years and seven months. The provision allows for bail if an accused has served half or one-third of the prescribed sentence without trial completion.
However, the respondent, represented by Advocate Unnikrishnan M., CGSC, opposed the plea, emphasizing the scale of the fraud and the gravity of the allegations.
Key Legal Issues
1. Applicability of Section 479(1) BNSS:
The court examined whether this provision could override restrictions under the PMLA, especially when the accused faces multiple cases involving serious financial offenses.
2. Gravity of Offense and Public Interest:
The petitioner was accused of defrauding depositors by creating fictitious documents and siphoning funds through bogus accounts. Over ₹882.85 crores were allegedly sanctioned to 24 major beneficiaries under dubious circumstances.
3. Multiplicity of Cases:
Ramakrishna faces not just PMLA charges but additional cases under IPC Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, and the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.
Court’s Observations
Justice H.P. Sandesh highlighted that the case involved egregious allegations of fraud affecting public trust. The judgment noted:
“Section 479(1) of BNSS cannot be applied in isolation. The provisos explicitly state that the benefit is inapplicable where multiple offenses are pending. The court must weigh public interest, especially in cases involving such staggering financial fraud.”
The court also referred to prior judgments, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Mohd. Muslim Alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), to underscore the balance between personal liberty and public interest in granting bail.
Decision
Rejecting the petition, the court ruled:
“The petitioner cannot invoke Section 479(1) BNSS for bail when the charges involve ₹1,544 crores of public funds misappropriated through fake deposits and fraudulent loans. The gravity of the offense and pending cases disqualify him from any leniency.”
