The LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 34-year-old Pramod Acharya, who was accused of cheating a woman after promising to marry her. The court, presided over by Judge Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, delivered the order on June 29, 2022, emphasizing that the major part of the investigation was complete and the alleged offences were not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
The case, registered as Crime No. 165/2022 by the Ramamurthynagar Police, includes charges under Sections 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Allegations of False Promise to Marry and Life Threats
The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by a woman who claimed to have been in a long-term love affair with the petitioner, Pramod Acharya. According to the prosecution’s version, the petitioner had allegedly promised to marry the complainant and, under the guise of this promise, maintained sexual contact with her.
The complainant alleged that Pramod Acharya had asked her to wait for their marriage until his elder brother, Praveen Acharya, was wedded. Following the brother’s marriage in December 2021, the complainant reportedly approached the petitioner to formalize their relationship. However, she alleged that the petitioner’s attitude shifted drastically. According to the complaint, on March 16, 2022, when she requested him to fulfill his promise, he refused, abused her in filthy language, and issued threats to her life. The complainant even approached the petitioner’s father on April 22, 2022, to seek justice before eventually approaching the police.
Defense Denies Relationship and Points to Complaint Delay
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Mahesh Naik presented several grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail. The defense categorically denied the existence of any love affair, stating that Pramod Acharya was not even aware of the complainant and that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted a significant delay in lodging the complaint, arguing that the alleged incidents took place months before the police were notified, and this delay remained unexplained. The petitioner maintained his innocence and expressed a total willingness to cooperate with the authorities and abide by any judicial conditions to clear his name.
Prosecution’s Objection and Court’s Legal Reasoning
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that there were prima facie materials against the petitioner. The state expressed concern that if released on bail, Pramod Acharya might use his liberty to threaten the complainant and her friends, thereby obstructing the course of justice.
In the court’s detailed reasoning, Judge K.S. Jyothishree noted that the burden of proving the allegations lies with the complainant during the trial. The court observed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had already commenced the investigation, conducted the necessary mahazar (spot inspection), and recorded statements from witnesses.
The judge remarked, “The involvement of the petitioner is yet to be proved. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They are to be tried before a learned Magistrate.” Consequently, the court found no substantial reason to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail at this stage.
Final Order and Conditions of Bail
The court allowed the petition and directed the Ramamurthynagar Police to release Pramod Acharya in the event of his arrest, subject to several conditions designed to protect the integrity of the case.
The specific conditions of the bail order are as follows:
- The petitioner must execute a personal bond for a sum of 50,000 rupees with a surety of a like sum.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from threatening the complainant or any other witnesses involved in the case.
This ruling provides the petitioner with temporary relief from custodial detention as the legal process continues to determine the veracity of the claims regarding the breach of promise and alleged intimidation.