A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Umesh Gurjar, a 50-year-old tax consultant, in connection with a high-value bank fraud case involving the fabrication of Income Tax documents. The order was delivered on January 30, 2023, by Sri A.V. Patil, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The court observed that since the case is primarily based on documentary evidence and the offences are triable by a Magistrate, custodial interrogation was not immediately necessary.
The petitioner, Umesh Gurjar, approached the court seeking protection from arrest following an FIR registered at the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station in Crime Number 363/2022. The case involves allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating filed by the Karur Vysya Bank against five individuals.
Background of the Alleged Bank Fraud
The legal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint lodged by Sri P.V. Sambasiva Rao, the Chief Manager of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. According to the prosecution, the primary accused individuals, identified as a husband-and-wife duo running a civil contracting firm called M/s MBR Constructions, conspired with others to defraud the bank.
The accused Number 1 had approached the bank to purchase a luxury residential flat in Anekal Taluk, valued at approximately 1.93 crore rupees. To facilitate this purchase, a home loan of 1.54 crore rupees was sought. During the application process, the accused submitted various documents, including Title Deeds and Income Tax Returns (ITR), to establish their creditworthiness and eligibility for such a substantial amount.
The bank sanctioned the loan in the 2019-20 financial year. However, the account eventually defaulted and was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on March 23, 2021. Subsequent internal investigations by the bank revealed that the Income Tax Returns provided at the time of the loan application were fabricated and forged specifically to induce the bank into sanctioning a loan for which the borrower was not eligible.
Role of the Petitioner and Legal Arguments
Umesh Gurjar, arrayed as Accused Number 5, was implicated as the individual who allegedly assisted in the preparation or submission of these forged documents. As a tax consultant and a middleman between the bank and customers, the prosecution alleged that he was aware of the falsity of the documents and actively participated in the conspiracy to cheat the financial institution.
Representing the petitioner, his counsel argued that Mr. Gurjar was merely a broker between the bank and the buyers. He contended that the petitioner had helped Accused Number 3 (the landlord) find prospective buyers for properties in Sarjapura and assisted them in obtaining bank loans, for which he received a legitimate commission. The defense maintained that the petitioner had no role in the creation of the alleged forged IT documents and had lost contact with the parties after the sale deeds were registered in 2019.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie showed a clear involvement of the tax consultant in defrauding the bank of a huge sum of money.
Judicial Reasoning and Court Observations
In its evaluation, the court noted that the offences alleged—punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 419 (Cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 463 (Forgery), 464 (Making a false document), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 120A (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860—are serious but not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The judge observed that the bank had sanctioned the loan only after their own officials had verified the documents. Furthermore, there was a noticeable delay in filing the criminal complaint after the loan became an NPA. Since the case relies heavily on documents already in the possession of the bank or authorities, the court found that the risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence was low if suitable conditions were imposed.
Final Order and Conditions of Bail
The court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the police to release Umesh Gurjar on bail in the event of his arrest. The petitioner was ordered to execute a personal bond of 70,000 rupees with one surety of a like sum.
The court imposed the following strict conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Kumaraswamy Layout Police within 20 days.
- He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- He must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned.
- He must provide residential address proof and an attested copy of his Aadhaar card.
- He is prohibited from committing any similar offences in the future.
The judge clarified that this order does not restrict the rights of the investigating agency to conduct a thorough probe into the charges against the petitioner. Following the eventual transition of Indian criminal laws, these sections of the IPC correspond to similar provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), such as Section 318 for cheating and Section 336 for forgery.