BENGALURU, INDIA – In a significant development, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has granted anticipatory bail to Balaji Nayak @ Balaji, aged 25, in connection with a 2017 cheating and criminal conspiracy case. The order, delivered on September 26, 2023, under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8339/2023, provides relief to the petitioner who was apprehending arrest by the Nandini Layout Police in Crime No. 216/2017 (C.C. No. 14805/2018).

The case involves alleged offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

The origin of the case dates back to a complaint lodged on June 15, 2017, by Sandeep Gupta. The complainant alleged that in May 2017, a person identified as Kumar Akshay contacted him through the ‘I-RENT SHARE’ website, where the complainant had posted an advertisement for the rental of his NIKON D-5100 interchangeable lens camera. Kumar Akshay rented the camera for a few days but subsequently switched off his mobile number, leading to the complaint of cheating and theft of the valuable equipment.

Crucially, the petitioner, Balaji Nayak, a resident of Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District, was not named in the initial First Information Report (FIR) filed on June 15, 2017. His name was introduced into the case records later, and he was ultimately arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the charge sheet filed by the Nandini Layout Police on May 24, 2018, nearly a year after the original complaint.

Petitioner’s Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

Appearing through his counsel, Sri. Krishna Naik, the petitioner strongly asserted his innocence, arguing that he had been “falsely implicated” and made a “scapegoat” in the case. The core of the defence rested on several key points:

1. Delayed Implication: The petitioner’s name was not in the original FIR, only being introduced later in the charge sheet, suggesting a fabrication or false implication.
2. Absence of Direct Connection: Balaji Nayak claimed to be a stranger to the alleged incident and denied any involvement in cheating the complainant.
3. Investigation Completed: The police have already completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet (C.C. No. 14805/2018), meaning the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
4. Circumstances of Warrant/Proclamation: The petitioner highlighted procedural irregularities in the trial court’s proceedings, noting that the Magistrate issued summons, then a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), and subsequently a proclamation with attachment orders, even when service reports were reportedly not duly filed. This, the petitioner contended, was incorrect and premature.
5. Nature of Offence: The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and are triable by a Magistrate.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Rationale

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the petitioner was an “absconding accused” cited in the final report. The prosecution expressed apprehension that if granted bail, Balaji Nayak might abscond, commit similar offences, or tamper with prosecution witnesses, especially since his voluntary statement had been recorded by Malleshwaram police in a separate case (Cr. No. 107/2017) which allegedly linked him to the current offence.

Justice Sabappa, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, carefully considered the submissions and the materials on record. The court noted that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the petitioner was currently not required for police interrogation. The judge also recognized the trial court’s action of issuing NBW and proclamation, which prompted the petitioner to seek immediate protection from arrest.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

In its reasoning, the court placed significant reliance on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar & another (2014(8) SCC 273). This ruling mandates that police officers should not arrest and Magistrates should not authorize detention casually or mechanically in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. Given that the alleged offences in the present case are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry a life sentence or death penalty, the court found the principle of the Arnesh Kumar judgment to be aptly applicable.

The court concluded that a balance must be maintained to prevent “harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention” of the accused while ensuring no prejudice is caused to the trial. Deciding that “bail is a rule, jail is exception,” the court found that sufficient grounds existed to grant anticipatory bail, provided stringent conditions are imposed to safeguard the prosecution’s interests.

Conditions for Bail

The court ordered Balaji Nayak to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, subject to him executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum, along with the following mandatory conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the trial court within 15 days from the date of the bail order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
3. He must regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and must furnish his address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

The order also explicitly stated that the Investigating Officer (IO) is at liberty to move for the cancellation of bail if any of the imposed conditions are violated by the petitioner. This judgment offers a crucial protection to Balaji Nayak, allowing him to contest the charges without the immediate threat of custodial arrest.