The LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to M. Vasu, a 59-year-old resident of Mariyappanapalya, who is accused of participating in a large-scale loan fraud scheme. The court, presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, ruled in favor of the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 3 in a case involving the alleged cheating of over 250 people under the guise of a government-backed welfare scheme.

The legal proceedings arose from Crime No. 116/2021, registered at the Peenya Police Station. The case was initiated following a complaint by Smt. Jaya, who alleged that a group of individuals had systematically defrauded members of the public by promising easy access to government loans.

The Allegations of the Loan Fraud Scheme

According to the charge sheet filed before the 31st ACMM Court in Bengaluru, M. Vasu and his co-accused reportedly approached roughly 250 individuals, claiming they could facilitate loans of 2,00,000 Rupees each. These loans were purportedly part of the Kalyana Yojane scheme, a welfare initiative meant for the backward classes within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike BBMP jurisdiction.

The prosecution alleged that the accused collected a processing fee of 2,000 Rupees from each applicant, accumulating a total sum of approximately 5,00,000 Rupees. Despite promising that the funds would be disbursed within a month, the accused allegedly failed to provide the loans and misutilized the collected amount. Consequently, the police charged the group under Section 420 cheating and Section 506 criminal intimidation read with Section 34 common intention of the Indian Penal Code.

Defense Arguments and the Apprehension of Arrest

During the hearing for the anticipatory bail petition Crl.Misc.No. 518/2023, the counsel for M. Vasu, Smt. K.N. Nagarathna, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime. The defense highlighted that Vasu is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with deep roots in the society and is the sole earning member of his family, responsible for looking after his aged parents and siblings.

A critical point of the petition was the apprehension of arrest. Although a charge sheet had already been filed, the police had categorized the petitioner as “absconding,” leading the Learned Magistrate to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant NBW. The defense argued that the petitioner was ready to cooperate with the trial and abide by any court-mandated conditions.

The Prosecution’s Objections

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail, labeling the offences as “grave in nature and against society.” The prosecution argued that the accused had intentionally cheated vulnerable citizens by promising government aid. There were concerns that if Vasu were granted bail, he might abscond, delay the trial, or threaten the informant and other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution further emphasized the difficulty in securing the presence of the accused during the trial if protection from arrest was granted.

Court’s Observations and Final Verdict

After evaluating the materials on record, including the charge sheet and the objection statement, Judge B.G. Pramoda observed that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by a Magistrate. The court noted that since the investigation had already been completed and the charge sheet filed, the custodial interrogation of M. Vasu was no longer necessary for the further progress of the case.

The court also took into consideration that Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 4, who faced similar allegations in the same case, had already been granted anticipatory bail in a separate petition Crl.Misc.No. 3/2023. Exercising the principle of parity and acknowledging the petitioner’s willingness to offer surety, the court decided to allow the petition.

Conditions for Bail

The court ordered that in the event of arrest, M. Vasu shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of 1,00,000 Rupees with one surety for the likesum. The grant of bail is subject to several strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the 31st ACMM Court within two weeks to seek regular bail.
2. The petitioner must attend all trial proceedings regularly.
3. He is prohibited from threatening or inducing any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
4. The petitioner must not attempt to destroy evidence or leave the country without prior permission.
5. Any violation of these terms will lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail.

With this order, M. Vasu has been protected from immediate arrest, provided he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the trial court within the stipulated timeframe.