BENGALURU – The LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to N.S. Nagaraja, who was accused of cheating a woman of nearly ten lakh rupees under the pretext of securing a government job for her daughter. The court, presided over by Shri. Hemanth Kumar C.R., observed that since the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the accused has deep roots in society, custodial interrogation was not mandatory at this stage.
The legal battle, registered under Crime No. 206/2022 by the Jnanbharathi Police, highlights the recurring issue of “job-for-cash” scams and the complexities of distinguishing between criminal fraud and private financial disputes during the bail stage.
Background of the Alleged Job Fraud
The case was set in motion on July 27, 2022, when a woman running a company named S.R.K. Chemical & Services lodged a formal complaint. According to the complainant, the accused, N.S. Nagaraja (also known as Nagabhushan), was known to her family for over nine years and worked as an auto-driver.
The complainant alleged that Nagaraja exploited this long-standing trust by promising to secure a government position for her daughter. Specifically, he reportedly assured her that he could facilitate an appointment as a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Village Accountant (VA), or a “Group D” employee. Believing these representations, the complainant claimed she paid him a total of Rs. 10,00,000 in various installments.
The breakdown of the payments provided to the police included Rs. 2,49,000 via PhonePe, Rs. 4,92,000 through direct bank transfers, and Rs. 2,59,000 in cash. The complainant further stated that she had raised these funds by taking out loans. When no job materialized after a year, the complainant confronted the accused. While he initially promised to return Rs. 20,00,000 as compensation, he ultimately failed to pay, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
Defense Claims Revenge and Financial Dispute
N.S. Nagaraja, represented by Advocate Sri CBM, vehemently denied the allegations, characterizing them as a fabricated narrative designed to avoid debt repayment. The defense presented a counter-narrative, asserting that it was actually the complainant who owed money to Nagaraja.
The petitioner argued that he had never promised any government jobs nor received money for such purposes. Instead, he claimed that the complainant had borrowed money from him in the past. According to the defense, the bank transfers mentioned in the complaint were actually part-payments made by the complainant to settle her existing debt to Nagaraja.
The defense further argued that when Nagaraja began insisting on the payment of the remaining balance, the complainant used her daughter’s job aspirations as a convenient cover to file a false criminal case. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out an inordinate delay in filing the complaint—the alleged incident dates back to August 2021, yet the FIR was only registered in July 2022.
Prosecution Opposes Release Citing Gravity of Offence
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the anticipatory bail petition, arguing that the nature of the crime was grievous. The state contended that there was clear documentary evidence in the form of bank and PhonePe transactions that prima facie linked the accused to the receipt of large sums of money.
The prosecution expressed concerns that the investigation was still in its nascent stages and that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) needed to collect more statements and documents. They argued that if Nagaraja were granted liberty, he might threaten the prosecution witnesses, destroy digital or physical evidence, and potentially abscond to evade trial.
The Courts Reasoning and Final Verdict
After evaluating the rival contentions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. noted that while the allegations involved significant sums of money, the primary charge was under Section 420 of the IPC, which is not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
The court observed that at the bail stage, it cannot be conclusively determined whether the accused committed the offence or if the defense’s claim of a civil debt dispute is true. Such matters, the court noted, are subject to a full-fledged trial. The court emphasized that the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru with a verified address, which significantly reduces the risk of him fleeing from justice.
Regarding the prosecution’s fears of witness tampering, the court ruled that such apprehensions could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than by denying bail. Consequently, the court found the petitioner entitled to protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Conditions Imposed for Anticipatory Bail
The court allowed the petition and directed the Jnanbharathi Police to release N.S. Nagaraja on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and one surety of the like sum. To ensure the integrity of the investigation, the court imposed the following mandates:
- The petitioner must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates and cooperate with the trial.
- He must present himself before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned for questioning.
- He is strictly prohibited from tampering with any evidence or threatening, inducing, or alluring prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- He must not involve himself in any other criminal activities during the bail period.
- He is required to produce valid documents proving his permanent residential address to the authorities.
This order serves as a reminder that while the police have the right to investigate serious allegations of fraud, the judiciary maintains a balance by protecting the liberty of individuals when custodial interrogation is not strictly necessary for the progress of the case.