BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted bail to the former Commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in relation to the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) concerning the alleged irregularities in allotment of MUDA sites, imposing certain conditions. Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order while allowing the petition filed by Dinesh Kumar, who is in judicial custody, seeking bail in the proceedings initiated under the PMLA Act.
The court said the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs 5 lakh with two solvent sureties for the like sum. He shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution witnesses and shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates, the court added.
Though a complaint was registered against several persons, including former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife, brother-in-law and another person, based on a complaint filed by activist Snehamayi Krishna, after the investigation, they were dropped from the array of accused in the predicate offence, which had become a crime in 2024. Those who remained in the fray were other accused, one of whom is the petitioner, against whom the ED registered the complaint. The sessions court rejected his bail petition, and hence he moved the court.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Coordinate Bench of this court in January permitted the petitioner to approach this court again on twin circumstances, viz if there was no progress in the trial for over three months coupled with changed circumstances. “Now, there are nine changed circumstances in the case for the petitioner to knock at the doors of this court.
At the time when the delay in trial was projected for the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, the proceedings were only 127 days old. Today, the proceedings are about 275 days old, and the stage remains the same. It is at a pre-cognisance stage. Therefore, the petitioner must be enlarged on bail owing to the facts obtaining at this juncture and change in circumstances,” he argued.
Additional Solicitor General K Arvind Kamath vehemently refuted the submissions in contending that merely because changed circumstances have come about, the earlier order rejecting the bail cannot be brushed aside. The apex court has clearly held that delay in trial alone cannot be the reason for grant of bail to an accused, particularly when the offences are found to be grave, he argued.
The court, however, noted that the documents run to about 12,000 pages is an admitted fact and a plethora of witnesses to be examined by the trial court is again an admitted fact. The vehement opposition of Kamath would have merited acceptance if there was no changed circumstance at all, the court added.
