The LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59) in Bengaluru City, Sri N. Krishnaiah, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Arun Kumar, the primary accused (accused No.1) in a case involving serious allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The order, passed on June 29, 2022, rejected the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 61/2021 registered by the Sanjay Nagar Police Station.

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, aged about 30 years, was facing potential arrest for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was pending on the file of the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

Petitioner’s Grounds and Legal History

Arun Kumar’s petition argued that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and hailed from a respectable family with deep roots in society. He claimed he was not required for custodial interrogation.

Crucially, the petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, pointing out that co-accused Nos. 2 and 3 had already been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Specifically, accused No.2 was released on regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Petition No. 648/2022, and accused No.3 was granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Petition No. 2767/2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court and offered to furnish surety.

However, the court noted from the outset that this was the petitioner’s second anticipatory bail application, his previous similar petition in C.Misc.No.341/2022 having already been rejected by the same court after considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences. The court found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any changed circumstances since the rejection of the first petition to warrant reconsideration.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Rationale

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, asserting that sufficient prima facie material existed to link the petitioner to the alleged crimes. The prosecution argued that the investigation was still ongoing and that releasing Arun Kumar on bail at this stage could lead to him tampering with documents and prosecution witnesses or absconding from the court’s jurisdiction, thereby hindering a fair investigation.

The court meticulously examined the plea of parity raised by the defence. While acknowledging that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been granted bail by the High Court, the Sessions Judge drew a clear distinction between their roles and that of the petitioner.

The court found that there was a “serious allegation” specifically against the petitioner/accused No.1, highlighting the evidence suggesting he was the “king pinner of the entire incident.” The order explicitly states: “He has forged the documents, obtained loan from the Banks, misappropriated the same and cheated the bank and also the complainant.”

Based on these findings, the court concluded that the petitioner could not be released on anticipatory bail merely on the ground of parity with his co-accused, whose roles in the conspiracy appeared to be secondary to his.

Necessity of Custodial Interrogation

A critical factor in the court’s decision was the perceived necessity of custodial interrogation. The court ruled that the petitioner was required for police custody, stating that if he were released on bail, he might “tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the prosecution evidence,” and potentially “abscond.” These factors, combined with the serious nature and gravity of the offences—which involve sophisticated acts of forgery and large-scale cheating of banks and the complainant—convinced the court that it was not a fit case to exercise its discretionary power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the petitioner’s favour.

The Sessions Judge determined that the petitioner had not made out any sufficient grounds to entertain the second petition, thus concluding Point No. 1 (entitlement to anticipatory bail) in the Negative.

Consequently, the bail application filed by Arun Kumar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, leaving the petitioner vulnerable to arrest by the Sanjay Nagar Police as the investigation progresses. This ruling sends a strong message that those identified as the key conspirators or masterminds behind financial frauds and forgery cannot automatically claim bail on the basis of parity with peripheral co-accused, especially when the investigation is still incomplete.