The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Rashmi alias Rashmi Ravindra, an employee of the Kempegowda Credit Co-operative Society, in connection with a major financial misappropriation case. The decision, delivered by Judge Sri. S. Nataraj on June 21, 2022, provides relief to the petitioner who was named as Accused No. 5 in a criminal case involving the alleged cheating of the co-operative society to the tune of over Rs. 1.5 crore.

The case, registered under Crime No. 47/2022 by the Banashankari Police, involves multiple serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, including Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust), Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), Section 420 (Cheating), and sections related to forgery and criminal conspiracy.

Background of the Kempegowda Credit Society Scam

The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by Jayakumar H.K., the Chief Executive Officer of the Kempegowda Credit Co-operative Society. According to the complaint, the society had deposited a total sum of Rs. 3,37,35,901 across 11 fixed deposit bonds at the Swarna Bharathi Sahakara Sangha Bank in Bengaluru.

The prosecution alleged that the Secretary of the society, Rajesh Gowda (Accused No. 1), in collusion with Jayaram (Accused No. 2), misappropriated approximately Rs. 1.52 crore by obtaining loans against these fixed deposits without the authorization or knowledge of the Board of Directors. It was further alleged that funds were diverted through various cheques and criminal intimidation was used to keep the fraud hidden from the society’s governing body.

The petitioner, Rashmi Ravindra, was later implicated as Accused No. 5. The prosecution contended that as an employee, she had conspired with other accused individuals and knowingly facilitated the transfer of forged cheques and misappropriated funds to personal accounts, thereby cheating the society.

Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

Rashmi Ravindra moved the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking protection from arrest. Her counsel, Sri. S. Raghunathgowda, argued that the petitioner was a stranger to the core criminal acts described in the original complaint. He emphasized that her name was not even mentioned in the initial FIR and that the primary allegations were directed at the high-ranking officials of the society, namely Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The defense further highlighted that the main accused individuals in the case had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court. It was argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and a permanent resident of Bengaluru, making her a low risk for absconding. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting that any of the misappropriated funds had been transferred to her personal bank accounts.

To bolster their case for equity, the defense filed a memo indicating that a significant portion of the disputed amount—over Rs. 2.16 crore—had already been credited back to the complainant society by the Swarna Bharathi Sahakara Bank, suggesting that the financial loss was being mitigated.

The Court’s Reasoning

In evaluating the bail application, Judge S. Nataraj observed that the primary allegations of misappropriating fixed deposits were aimed at the Secretary and other officials, and not directly at the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner’s specific role and the extent of her alleged involvement were matters that required detailed investigation during the trial.

The court took into consideration that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Crucially, the court found that since the primary accused had already secured bail, the principle of parity and the lack of direct evidence of personal gain by the petitioner made a strong case for her release.

“The material does not disclose that any amount has been transferred to her account or she has personally misappropriated the amount,” the court stated, adding that as a permanent resident and employee, the chance of her fleeing from justice was remote.

Terms of the Order

The court allowed the petition and ordered that in the event of her arrest, Rashmi Ravindra must be released on bail subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount. The grant of bail is subject to the following strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of the investigation.
2. She is strictly prohibited from threatening the complainant or any prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
3. She must regularly appear before the concerned court for all scheduled hearings.
4. She must not commit similar offences while out on bail.
5. Any violation of these conditions will lead to the automatic cancellation of the anticipatory bail order.

This ruling ensures that while the Banashankari Police continue their investigation into the multi-crore society fraud, the petitioner’s liberty is preserved as long as she complies with the legal process.