The LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to a senior citizen and his wife accused of cheating a businessman to the tune of over Rs 2.47 crore. The court, presided over by Judge Smt. Kalpana M.S., cited the age of the primary petitioner and the legal protections afforded to women under the Code of Criminal Procedure while providing relief to the couple.

The petitioners, 68-year-old Peter Caddy and 54-year-old Sangeetha Caddy, both residents of Richards Park, Bengaluru, had approached the court seeking protection from arrest. The Pulakeshinagar police had registered a case against them in Crime No. 19/2023 following a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating.

Details of the Fraud Allegations

The case was initiated based on a complaint filed by Harsha Kanekal. According to the prosecution, the complainant approached Peter Caddy seeking financial assistance. It is alleged that Peter Caddy assured the complainant of securing a loan of Rs 5 crore. Under the guise of processing fees, legal documentation, and valuation reports, Caddy allegedly collected Rs 3.5 lakh from the complainant initially.

The situation escalated when the petitioners reportedly convinced the complainant that they would purchase his Trust property through their organization, the Creative Edu Foundation Trust. They allegedly claimed this transaction would resolve the complainant’s ongoing financial and loan-related hurdles. The complaint further states that the couple collected a staggering total of Rs 2,47,50,000 from the complainant for various purported expenses, including Trust registration, sale permissions, and “Enforcement Directorate (ED) office works.” The complainant eventually realized he had been defrauded when the promises remained unfulfilled.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

Represented by advocate Sri K.T. Pemmaiah, the petitioners denied all allegations of wrongdoing. They argued that they were being falsely implicated in a criminal case over what was essentially a civil dispute. The defense counsel contended that it was actually the complainant who had sought financial help from the petitioners and failed to repay the debt.

The defense further argued that the petitioners had already initiated legal proceedings against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding bounced cheques. They claimed that the current criminal complaint was a retaliatory measure intended to escape financial liability. Emphasizing the age of the first petitioner and the gender of the second, the counsel argued that they posed no flight risk and were willing to cooperate with the police.

Judicial Observations on Bail and Liberty

In its detailed order, the court noted that the offences under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating) are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Judge Kalpana M.S. reiterated the fundamental legal principle that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” emphasizing that this doctrine safeguards the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court placed significant weight on the proviso to Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for special consideration when the accused is a woman, sick, infirm, or a senior citizen. The judge noted that Peter Caddy is a senior citizen and Sangeetha Caddy is a woman, and there were no reported criminal antecedents against them.

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

While granting the petition, the court acknowledged the substantial amount of money involved in the allegations and set a high bond amount to ensure the petitioners’ compliance with the legal process.

The court directed the Pulakeshinagar police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners must execute a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum.
2. They must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of the order and cooperate fully with the probe.
3. They are required to mark their attendance at the police station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month for three months or until the investigation concludes.
4. They are strictly prohibited from threatening or inducing the complainant or any witnesses.
5. They must not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial court.

The court concluded that a balance must be struck between individual liberty and the necessity of a fair trial. By imposing these stringent conditions, the court aimed to ensure that the investigation proceeds without hindrance while protecting the petitioners from “unjustifiable detention.”