A Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate, Swamy K, who was implicated in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating and forgery. The order, delivered on June 21, 2022, by Sri N. Krishnaiah, the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, emphasizes the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the secondary nature of his involvement in the alleged crime.
The petitioner, Swamy K, a 38-year-old resident of Nandini Layout, approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, fearing arrest by the Sadashivnagar Police in connection with Crime Number 79/2020. The case was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
Allegations of Marital Fraud and Financial Misconduct
The legal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by Dr. Madura against her husband, Dr. Chandu G.N., who is arrayed as Accused Number 1. The complainant alleged that her husband had created fraudulent documents and opened bank accounts in her name without her knowledge. He allegedly obtained substantial loans using these accounts and issued cheques to various individuals, thereby defrauding her and engaging in financial misconduct.
According to the complaint, the matter came to light when the complainant began receiving legal notices from advocates and summons from courts regarding the dishonor of cheques she claimed she never issued. One such notice was received on September 8, 2020, leading to the formal registration of the police complaint in October 2020.
Arguments for the Petitioner
The advocate representing Swamy K argued that the petitioner is completely innocent and a stranger to the alleged crimes. The defense highlighted that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the First Information Report (FIR) or the original complaint. His involvement only surfaced later, based on a voluntary statement given by Accused Number 4.
The defense further pointed out a significant delay of one and a half months in lodging the complaint after the complainant received the legal notices. It was argued that the primary dispute was between the complainant and her husband, and that the petitioner was being falsely implicated without any specific overt acts attributed to him. As a practicing advocate and a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the defense contended that Swamy K posed no flight risk and was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Observations
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, stating that the petitioner, arrayed as Accused Number 3, was involved in the crime and that the investigation was still ongoing. The state expressed concerns that the petitioner might tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses if granted liberty at this stage.
However, upon perusing the records, the court noted that the complaint primarily targeted the husband (Accused Number 1) and certain bank officials. The judge observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate how Swamy K was specifically involved in the forgery or the cheating process, other than the statement of a co-accused.
The court further noted that the offences under Section 420 and Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while non-bailable, are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. These offences are triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The judge remarked that since the petitioner is an advocate with a permanent residence, the chance of him fleeing from justice was remote.
Final Decision and Conditions of Bail
The court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not mandatory for the progress of the case, especially since Accused Number 4 had already been released on regular bail. Applying the discretionary powers of the court, Judge N. Krishnaiah allowed the petition.
The court directed that in the event of his arrest, Swamy K shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties of the same amount. The court imposed the following strict conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation:
- The petitioner shall not threaten prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with documents directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the probe as and when summoned.
- The petitioner is prohibited from committing similar offences in the future.
- The petitioner must attend court proceedings regularly on all hearing dates without fail.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the judicial principle that anticipatory bail can be granted when there is a lack of specific allegations or prima facie evidence against an individual, particularly when the primary dispute is between other parties.