Case Summary and Charges
On September 7, 2023, the LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru issued a common order granting anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Abhishek Prasad.N. and Rakshith, who were facing charges related to cyber fraud.
| Detail | Description |
| Petitioners | 1. Abhishek Prasad.N. (Accused) 2. Rakshith (Accused) |
| Respondent | State by East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru |
| Case Filed Under | Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology (IT) Act |
| Type of Bail Sought | Anticipatory Bail (Pre-arrest bail) under Section 438 Cr.P.C. |
| Main Allegation | Illegal withdrawal of Rs. 3,00,230/- from the complainant’s bank account. |
The case was registered based on a complaint filed by S.S. Subhash Chandran, who alleged that Rs. 3,00,230/- was withdrawn from his account on July 13 and 14, 2023, without his initiation of any transaction or sharing of any One-Time Password (OTP).
🛡️ Arguments for Bail (Petitioners’ Plea)
Both petitioners, represented by the same counsel, argued for anticipatory bail on the following grounds:
- Innocence and False Implication: They claimed they were innocent, had been falsely implicated, and were unknown to the complainant. Abhishek Prasad.N. specifically mentioned he was a 2nd-year B.Sc. student.
- Apprehension of Arrest: They feared imminent arrest following the issuance of police notices for enquiry under Section 41-A and Section 97 of the Cr.P.C.
- Minor Offences: The offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
- Compliance: They are permanent residents of the addresses shown and were ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Objection
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, raising the following points:
- Substantial Loss: A significant sum of Rs. 3,00,230/- was illegally withdrawn from the complainant’s bank account.
- Pending Investigation: The investigation was pending, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary to trace the full extent of the crime.
- Risk of Similar Offences: The prosecution feared the petitioners might have committed similar offences and cheated the public, necessitating further investigation.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The court carefully considered the arguments and the material on record before arriving at its conclusion.
1. Lack of Prima Facie Material
The court noted that the petitioners had approached the court after receiving police notices, but their names were not immediately forthcoming in the initial complaint details.
“At this stage, there is no prima facie material to believe that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged.”
The court acknowledged that the alleged role of the petitioners in withdrawing the amount required investigation, but there was no conclusive evidence yet to tie them directly to the crime.
2. Custodial Interrogation Not Essential
The court highlighted that the offences alleged are punishable with a term less than seven years and are triable by a Magistrate. Furthermore, given the nature of the accusation, the court was of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required.
3. Adherence to Apex Court Guidelines
The Judge specifically invoked the guidelines set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, which provides a framework for granting bail in cases where the potential imprisonment term is seven years or less. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the accusation level, and the individual circumstances, the court found the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail.
The court also noted that the petitioners are permanent residents and the chances of them absconding from the trial are remote.
The Bail Order: Conditions Imposed
The petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum.
The following conditions were strictly imposed:
- Mandatory Appearance: The petitioners must appear before the Investigation Officer (IO) on or before September 16, 2023, and thereafter whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
- No Threat: They shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- Regular Court Attendance: They shall regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
- No Similar Offences: They shall not commit similar offences.
The court further warned that if any of these conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.