Not possible to provide treatment in jail, govt cannot bear expenses: Karnataka High Court grants bail to Kanva Group MD N Nanjundaiah

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to the chairman and managing director of Kanva Group of companies, N Nanjundaiah on medical grounds..Single-judge Justice K Natarajan noted in its order that the accused is suffering from various ailments and treatment for the same would be expensive which cannot be borne by the government .“Therefore, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to provide proper medical care and protection to the petitioner, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case”, High Court said. .Nanjundaiah had moved the High Court seeking bail after a criminal case was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This apart, bail application was moved by Nanjundaiah after a case was registered by the Hosakote Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (KPID Act).Kiran Javali, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has not committed any offence except that he is a founder/director of the society and that he collected funds only from the society members and not from the public, it was submitted. It was added that due to some loss in the business by that time, the complaint came to be lodged by some investors. But there is no intention of the petitioner to cheat any of the investors, the High Court was further told. This apart, the Court was told that the petitioner is suffering from health issues such as first stage of cancer, diabetes and hypertension, along with depression. .On the other hand, Advocate P Prasanna Kumar, the counsel appearing for ED, opposed the bail petition, contending that the petitioner is involved in cheating more than 13,000 investors who are the members of the society. It was further argued that Kumar borrowed the loan out of the invested amount and re-invested in his other businesses.If he is released on bail, he may involve in selling the properties in his company’s name. If this happens, it may be very difficult for ED to recover the same in order to repay the money to the investors under the KPID Act..What the Court said .After going through the facts in the instant matter and rival arguments, the Court opined that there was no case for the petitioner to be released on bail on merits."Looking to the entire facts reveals that the petitioner was involved in reinvesting the money by borrowing it from the Society out of the deposits which is nothing but proceeds of the crime is nothing but Money Laundering which attracts the offence under the PML Act. On merits, absolutely there is no case for the petitioner.".However, the Court also noted the medical history of the petitioner and opined that he requires medical attention. ."Looking to the entire medical documents, it reveals that the petitioner is in danger due to various ailments and therefore, he require proper treatment in the good multi-Specialty Hospital at Bengaluru. It is not possible to provide proper treatment by the Jail Authorities which requires more expenses, which cannot be borne by the Government.".The Court further pointed out that as far as economic offences are concerned, not granting bail is the normal procedure. ."The Court will not grant bail to the accused where economic offences are involved and huge public money is involved."But since medical treatment is needed in this case, the Court thought it fit to grant bail.With these observations, the Court proceeded to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner-accused to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Courts(both cases separately). The trial Court shall ascertain the whereabouts of the sureties before accepting the surety bonds;(ii) Petitioner to regularly appear before the trial Court till conclusion of the trial;(iii) Petitioner to not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses and shall surrender the passport;(iv) Petitioner to not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court;(v) Petitioner to not alienate any of the properties either in his name or in the name of his family without permission of the Court;(vi) Petitioner to co-operate with the Administrator appointed by the Division Bench / and also Competent Authority appointed under the KPID Act..[Read Judgement]