In a recent order, the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-67) in Bengaluru, Sri. S. Nataraj, BAL., LLB., granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Mansur.P. and Anil Kumar, who were accused in a case involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust related to the purchase and use of multiple transport vehicles. The common order was passed on September 2, 2023, for the two petitions, Crl.Misc.No. 8332/2023 and Crl.Misc.No.8516/2023, both arising from the same crime, Cr.No.212/2023, registered by the Siddapura Police Station.

The Allegations and Background

The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was filed by the proprietor of SRS Transport company, which also conducts business with M/s LT Transports.

The gist of the allegation is that the complainant intended to purchase 11 vehicles for their transport business. The two petitioners were allegedly involved in the procurement process:

• Mansur.P. (Petitioner in Crl.Misc.8332/2023/Accused No. 1) was an employee of AML Motors Pvt.Ltd.
• Anil Kumar (Petitioner in Crl.Misc.8516/2023/Accused No. 2) was a friend of Mansur.

The petitioners allegedly assured the complainant they would facilitate the purchase of the vehicles. Subsequently, six vehicles were booked in the name of the complainant and four in the name of his brother, Revana Siddaiah. Bank loans and finance were arranged, with payments made to AML Motors Pvt.Ltd.

The key accusation is that eight transport vehicles were handed over to the informants in January 2023. However, the petitioners are accused of illegally taking custody of eight vehicles for approximately six months. Specifically, Anil Kumar (Accused No. 2) is alleged to have:

• Illegally utilized two vehicles for personal use.
• Changed the entire body building of six vehicles, effectively cheating the complainants and misappropriating the vehicles.
• The remaining two vehicles out of the initial 11 were not yet delivered.

The Siddapura Police Station registered a case against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

Petitioners’ Defense and Contentions

Both petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., asserting their innocence and apprehension of arrest.

Mansur.P. (Accused No. 1) claimed that as an employee of AMN Motors Private Ltd., he had nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant and Accused No. 2. He asserted that he was falsely implicated due to a dispute that was essentially between the other two parties.

Anil Kumar (Accused No. 2) argued that he was the actual investor for all the vehicles that were allegedly misappropriated by the complainant, thus portraying himself as the victim in the dispute. His counsel submitted a memo with documents showing amounts transferred for the purchase of the vehicles.

Both petitioners offered to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, opposing the bail petitions. The prosecution contended that:

• The petitions were not maintainable.
• The petitioners illegally took custody of eight vehicles for six months without the complainant’s consent and used them for personal purposes.
• The body of six vehicles was changed, and two vehicles were yet to be delivered.
• The investigation was still pending.
• Granting bail might lead to the petitioners absconding or destroying evidence.

The Court’s Rationale and Finding

After hearing arguments and perusing the records, the court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

The court meticulously considered the following factors:

• Nature of the Dispute: The court acknowledged the submission by the counsel for Accused No. 2 regarding the transfer of a large amount towards the alleged purchase of vehicles. The court noted: “It appears the complainant and accused No. 2 having dispute.” This suggests the dispute is largely rooted in a business or financial conflict.
• Status of Allegations: The court deemed the question of whether the petitioners cheated the complainant, used the vehicles for personal use, or misappropriated them to be a matter of investigation and trial.
• Severity of Offences: Crucially, the court observed that the offences alleged (Sections 406 and 420 IPC) are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Risk of Absconding and Custodial Interrogation: The petitioners were noted to be permanent residents of the addresses shown, making the chance of absconding remote. Furthermore, the court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required at this stage.
• Judicial Guideline: The court also considered the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825), which encourages a non-custodial approach in cases where the maximum sentence is seven years or less.

Considering the gravity of the accusation, the nature of the offence, and the strong indication of an underlying financial dispute, the court found sufficient grounds to protect the petitioners from pre-trial arrest.

The Bail Order and Conditions

The petitions were allowed, and both petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.212/2023.

Each petitioner was ordered to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. The petitioners/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) on or before September 12, 2023, and thereafter as and when called upon for the purpose of investigation.
2. The petitioners/accused shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners/accused shall regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
4. The petitioners/accused shall not commit similar offences.

The court concluded the order by stating that if any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. This order grants the accused protection from arrest while compelling them to cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.