Anticipatory Bail Secured for Mansur P. and Anil Kumar in IPC 406 and 420 Case, Citing Nature of Offence and Need for Investigation
Bengaluru, September 2, 2023 — In a significant development, the LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Mansur P. and Anil Kumar, who were facing apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 212/2023. The common order was passed on September 2, 2023, for the two related criminal miscellaneous petitions, Crl.Misc. No. 8332/2023 and Crl.Misc. No. 8516/2023, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The petitioners, Mansur P. and Anil Kumar, were booked by the Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case is currently pending on the file of the IV ACMM, Bengaluru.
The Allegations and the Defence
The core of the dispute stems from a transport business deal involving the complainant, who runs SRS Transport Company, and M/s LT Transports. The complainant had intended to purchase 11 vehicles for their business.
The prosecution’s case, presented by the Public Prosecutor, alleges that Mansur P. (Accused No. 1 and petitioner in Crl.Misc. 8332/2023), identified as an employee of AML Motors Pvt. Ltd., and Anil Kumar (Accused No. 2 and petitioner in Crl.Misc. 8516/2023), a friend of Accused No. 1, assured the purchase of the vehicles. According to the complaint, six vehicles were in the name of the complainant and four in the name of his brother. Bank loans and finance were obtained and paid to AML Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Eight transport vehicles were reportedly handed over to the informants in January 2023 at Bidadi after body building. The prosecution contends that the petitioners, without the complainant’s consent, illegally took custody of eight vehicles and used them for personal purposes for six months. Furthermore, it was alleged that Anil Kumar changed the entire body building of six vehicles and that the remaining two vehicles were yet to be delivered, resulting in cheating and misappropriation. The prosecution feared the accused might abscond or destroy evidence if granted bail.
In their defence, both petitioners claimed innocence. Mansur P.’s counsel argued that he was merely an employee of AMN Motors Private Ltd. and had no involvement in the alleged dispute, suggesting the conflict was between the complainant and Accused No. 2, whom he claimed were partners. Mansur P. contended he was falsely implicated.
Anil Kumar’s counsel submitted a different perspective, asserting that he was the actual investor in the vehicles and was, in fact, the victim of misappropriation by the complainant. Documents and a memo were presented to the court indicating the transfer of a substantial amount towards the purchase of the vehicles.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the available records, Judge Sri. S. Nataraj addressed the primary point for consideration: “Whether the petitioners in both petitions are entitled for anticipatory bail?”
The court acknowledged the existence of the dispute, noting that “It appears the complainant and accused No. 2 having dispute.” The presiding judge recognized that the question of whether the petitioners cheated the complainant and misappropriated the vehicles was a matter for “investigation and trial.”
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. This categorization is a key factor often considered favorably in bail applications.
The court further noted that the petitioners are permanent residents at the addresses provided, which makes the chances of them “absconding from the trial… remote.” Significantly, the court determined that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required for the ongoing investigation. The petitioners’ willingness to appear before the court and assist with the investigation was also considered.
Citing the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, which promotes a less stringent approach towards pre-trial detention for non-heinous offences, the court decided to answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed both petitions, granting anticipatory bail to Mansur P. and Anil Kumar. They were ordered to be released in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.212/2023 upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.
The bail is subject to the following stringent conditions aimed at ensuring the fairness of the investigation and trial:
- Appearance Before IO: The petitioners/accused must appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) on or before September 12, 2023, and thereafter as and when called upon for the purpose of investigation.
- No Threat to Witnesses: The petitioners/accused shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses in any manner, either directly or indirectly.
- Regular Court Attendance: The petitioners/accused must regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
- No Similar Offences: Petitioners/accused shall not commit similar offences.
The court explicitly stated that the prosecution remains at liberty to move for the cancellation of bail should any of these conditions be violated. This common order provides interim relief to the accused while allowing the investigation into the alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating to proceed without the need for immediate custodial detention.