Ramakrishna Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in ₹80 Crore Bhovi Nigama Money Laundering Case; Ongoing Predicate Case Investigation Justifies Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Matter, Holds Karnataka High Court; Karnataka HC Allows Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Case as Accused Already on Regular Bail in Predicate Offence; Anticipatory Bail Permissible in PMLA Case When Offence Not Punishable With Life or Death: Karnataka High Court
Background
The Petitioner, Ramakrishna, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS) in connection with ECIR/BGZO/05/2025 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The case stems from Crime No. 56/2023 of Siddapura Police Station, alleging large-scale misappropriation of ₹80 crore belonging to Bhovi Nigama, by creating fake agencies & forged documents, routing funds through multiple accounts & causing major financial loss
Petitioner’s Grounds
- He was already arrested & granted regular bail by the trial court in the predicate offence (Crime No. 56/2023).
- Investigation in that case is still pending, & the charge sheet not filed.
- He has cooperated fully with the police & assured to continue doing so.
- The PMLA offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, making anticipatory bail permissible.
- The ED case is derivative of the same allegations already under police probe
Court’s Findings
- The predicate offence investigation is still incomplete & the exact role of the Petitioner is yet to be ascertained.
- Since the Petitioner is on regular bail in the base case & has been cooperative, there is no reason to deny protection in the ED proceeding.
- The alleged PMLA offences do not attract life imprisonment or death penalty.
- The Court held that the Petitioner made out a case for anticipatory bail with suitable safeguards
Order
