Bengaluru, June 21, 2022 — The LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Sri. Sadananda Nagappa Naik, granted anticipatory bail to Anantha Padmanabha U.N., who was arrayed as Accused No. 8 in a significant case involving alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The order, passed in Crl.Misc. No. 6010/2022, provides relief to the petitioner, an auditor, who successfully argued his lack of a direct, active role in the multi-lakh financial transaction that led to the complaint.

The Case Background and Allegations

The case originates from a complaint registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station in Crime No. 22/2022. The petitioner and seven other accused persons were booked under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional Insult), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) read with 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The facts of the case, as detailed in the FIR, revolve around a failed loan transaction. The informant required a substantial loan of Rs. 10 crore for his company, Style of Raising Sun Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. He was introduced to Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (who ran Spandana Foundation) via a friend.

The informant alleged that he was promised the loan in exchange for a commission. Over a period in July and August 2020, the complainant paid amounts totaling Rs. 32,25,000/- to the accused persons, with the promise of loan sanction. The accused subsequently failed to secure the loan. Furthermore, Accused No. 2 issued a cheque for part of the amount, which subsequently bounced. The overall cheating amount claimed by the informant totaled Rs. 75,41,000/-.

When the informant demanded the return of his money, the accused persons (with the explicit exclusion of the present petitioner, A-8) allegedly threatened him and used filthy language.

Petitioner’s Plea and Role Assessment

Anantha Padmanabha U.N., a 45-year-old auditor, approached the court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking protection from arrest. Represented by Advocate Sri. C.S. Lalitha Kumari, the petitioner contended he was innocent and had a valid defense.

The core argument hinged on the fact that the petitioner was merely the auditor of Spandana Foundation (run by Accused No. 2). The defense pointed out the lack of any direct financial transaction or even conversation between the petitioner and the informant. While the initial complaint suggested the petitioner was present during the payment of an initial amount of $\text{Rs.5,00,000}/-$, the counsel emphasized that the petitioner had “no active role in the alleged crime” and was falsely implicated.

The defense also noted that the alleged offences, though serious, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, thus allowing for the discretionary power of the court to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner claimed to be a permanent resident of Bengaluru, a law-abiding citizen, and the sole male earning member of his family, offering to abide by all conditions.

Court’s Decision and Rationale

The prosecution opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was one of the “main accused,” that custodial interrogation was necessary, and that he might abscond, tamper with witnesses, or destroy evidence due to his influential status.

The Court thoroughly considered the mandatory aspects for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, severity of the offence, and chances of the accused tampering with evidence.

The Judge observed two key factors favoring the petitioner:

1. Nature of the Offence: The offences are non-bailable but not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
2. Petitioner’s Role: The court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument that he was a permanent resident of Bengaluru and therefore available for trial. Crucially, in reviewing the complaint, the court noted that when the informant was allegedly threatened with life, the accused persons involved were listed, with the explicit exception of “this petitioner.” This observation supported the defense’s claim that the petitioner had a peripheral, non-violent, and likely non-principal role in the commission of the crime.

The Court ultimately concluded that the “apprehension of the prosecution could be met by imposing conditions” and that “no prejudice will be caused to the investigating agency in case anticipatory bail is granted.”

Bail Conditions Imposed

The petition was allowed, and Anantha Padmanabha U.N. was granted anticipatory bail. He was directed to be released in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.22/2022 on executing a personal bond in a sum of $\text{Rs.2,00,000}/-$ with two solvent sureties for the like sum, one of which must be a government surety, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

The release was subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. Petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
2. He shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
3. He shall appear before the court as and when required.
4. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the 1st of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of three months.
5. Violation of any condition would enable the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.
6. The Investigating Officer is required to verify the correctness of the address and the authentication of the documents furnished by the petitioner and his sureties and submit a report.

The court’s decision provides interim protection to the auditor, emphasizing that the lack of a primary, active role in the core elements of cheating and criminal intimidation justified the grant of pre-arrest bail, provided he fully cooperates with the ongoing investigation.