The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Shri Muralidhara Pai B., has granted anticipatory bail to Arpita U. Patil in connection with a high-profile case involving illegal soft loan applications and the charging of exorbitant interest rates. The order, dated September 5, 2023, pertained to the petition Crl. Misc. No. 7863/2023, seeking protection from arrest in Crime No. 251/2021 registered at Marathahalli Police Station and subsequently investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru.

The petitioner, Arpita U. Patil, aged 28, and a resident of Belagaum, was represented by Sri M.K. Venkatesh, Advocate. The respondent, the State of Karnataka, was represented by Sri Chinnavenkataravanappa, Public Prosecutor. The core of the case involves serious allegations against multiple accused, including the petitioner, for operating illegal lending schemes through mobile applications.

The criminal case was originally registered against one Mallappa and others for offences spanning several complex statutes. These included Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC—Punishment for cheating by personation); Section 38 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961; Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Computer related offences); Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004; and Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

According to the complaint/report filed by the Police Inspector of CCB-EOW, the investigation was launched based on credible information regarding soft loan lending operations conducted under the name of Licorise Technology Private Limited. These operations allegedly utilized mobile applications such as Cash Master and Kracy Rupees. The accused persons were reportedly recovering exorbitant interest rates and employing telecaller employees to issue threat calls and insult borrowers. The report also mentioned that the accused were simultaneously collecting investments under the name of Fesolo Private Limited.

The prosecution, in opposing the bail petition, highlighted that the petitioner, Arpita U. Patil, had served as a Director of Fincred Technology Solutions Private Limited from November 16, 2019, to November 10, 2020. Furthermore, the prosecution contended that she was not cooperating with the Investigating Agency, despite having been served a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioner, however, presented evidence to counter the prosecution’s claim of her direct involvement in the alleged criminal operations. She produced an Appointment Letter dated October 3, 2019, indicating her employment as a Credit Analyst with Prospect Technology Private Limited, deputed through Teamroll Inc. She also furnished a letter of employment dated May 1, 2020, showing her deputation to work at Licorice Technology Private Limited (which Prospect Technology Private Limited was renamed to). Crucially, she submitted a Relieving cum Experience Certificate confirming her employment at Licorice Technology Private Limited from October 3, 2019, to November 2, 2021. The Court noted that these documents prima facie suggested that her role was that of an employee within the company.

Addressing the prosecution’s claim of non-cooperation, the Court observed that the Investigating Agency had issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. on May 29, 2023, asking her to appear on June 9, 2023. Given this fact, and the petitioner’s categorical statement that she was ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the Court, the Judge concluded that there was no substance in the allegation that the petitioner was attempting to avoid the Investigating Agency.

The Court ultimately held that the petitioner had made out valid grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Judge, therefore, answered the main point of consideration in the affirmative.

The petition was allowed, and Arpita U. Patil was ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 251/2021. The bail was made subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) along with a surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

To ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation, the Court imposed eight stringent conditions upon the petitioner:

1. Surrender and Cooperation: The Petitioner must initially appear before the Investigation Officer on or before September 19, 2023, and cooperate with the further investigation in the case.
2. Contact Information: The Petitioner must furnish her mobile number and e-mail I.D. to the Investigation Officer on or before September 19, 2023, for receiving any notice or communication from the I.O. or the Court.
3. No Intimidation: The Petitioner shall not hold any threat to or lure the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. Residence: The Petitioner shall not change her residence pending disposal of the case without prior permission of the Court.
5. Passport Submission: The Petitioner must furnish a self-attested copy of her passport, if any, to the Investigation Officer on or before September 19, 2023.
6. Travel Ban: The Petitioner shall not leave the Country pending disposal of the case without prior permission of the Court.
7. Address Proof: The Petitioner shall produce address proof documents such as Voter’s ID or Aadhaar Card pertaining to herself and her surety at the time of executing the bail bonds.

This order reflects the principle that where the primary evidence suggests a person’s role may have been limited to that of an employee, and they express willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the constitutional right to liberty should be upheld through the grant of anticipatory bail, coupled with strict conditions to prevent flight or interference with the probe.