The Court of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH 57), presided over by Sri T. Govindaiah, allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Atish Kumar and Abhik Roy, Directors of M/s Acorp Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The petition was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) apprehending arrest in connection with a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 405, 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Commercial Background and Origin of the Dispute
The petitioners, Mr. Atish Kumar and Mr. Abhik Roy, serve as directors of M/s Acorp Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the interior design business operating out of Brigade Road, Bengaluru. The dispute arose out of a commercial arrangement with Mr. Santhosh Nichani, the proprietor of M/s Klass Interior, who was engaged as a vendor for the supply and installation of modular furniture for Acorp’s client, M/s E2OPEN Pvt. Ltd., across three project sites.
Under the agreed terms of the work order, M/s Klass Interior was required to deliver the modular furniture within 40 to 50 days and complete installation within 6 days post-delivery. The payment terms structured the consideration into three tranches: an advance payment of 45% upon issuance of the purchase order, 45% upon delivery of materials to the site, and the remaining 10% within 7 days of project completion, documentation handover, and final billing.
Pursuant to the agreement, three purchase orders were issued and accepted, subject to an advance payment of Rs. 88,86,670/-. However, according to the petitioners, the vendor failed to perform contractual obligations and defaulted on the delivery timeline. Consequently, M/s Acorp Consultants Pvt. Ltd. terminated the work order and issued a demand for a full refund of the advance amount along with interest at 18% per annum.
In response, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging breach of contract and criminal breach of trust, prompting police intervention. On August 7, 2022, the petitioners received a notice from the Santacruz Police Station in Mumbai requiring their appearance for an inquiry regarding the complaint.
Submissions of the Parties
Advocate Sri Anupam Agarwal, representing petitioners Atish Kumar and Abhik Roy, contended that the petitioners were law-abiding citizens, permanent residents of Bengaluru, and held respectable standing in society. Counsel submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature arising out of a contractual breach, and the criminal complaint was filed with malicious intent to defame the company’s image and cause harassment.
The petitioners highlighted that no formal FIR had been registered in Bengaluru at the time of filing, but the police notices and surrounding circumstances established a reasonable and concrete apprehension of arrest. They produced documentary evidence, including copies of Aadhaar cards, police notices, reply notices, purchase orders, legal notices, civil court plaints (O.S. No. 4850/2022), case status reports, and mediation application forms to substantiate the genuine commercial nature of the conflict.
The Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Karnataka through the Ashok Nagar Police Station, filed objections stating that no case had been registered against the petitioners in their police station according to information received from local authorities. The prosecution argued that the petition was based on imaginary grounds and sought its dismissal.
Legal Analysis and Principles on Anticipatory Bail
The Sessions Court framed the key point for determination as whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds to entitle them to protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Addressing the prosecution’s contention regarding the non-registration of an FIR, the Court held that the formal registration of a First Information Report is not a mandatory condition precedent for entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. The Court affirmed that a well-founded apprehension of arrest arising from police notices, ongoing inquiries, or civil-turned-criminal complaints is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Examining the record, the Court observed that the controversy stemmed from a contractual transaction involving interior design vendor services, advance payments, and subsequent termination of work orders. The Court noted that civil litigation (O.S. No. 4850/2022) and mediation proceedings were already active between the parties.
The Special Judge observed that while the truth of the allegations remains a matter for investigation, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners established a prima facie case for protective relief against pre-trial arrest. Since the alleged offences under Sections 405, 406, and 420 of IPC do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment, the Court held that the petitioners’ liberty could be safeguarded while ensuring full cooperation with investigating authorities.
Final Decision and Bail Conditions
The Court of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8175/2022 and granted anticipatory bail to Atish Kumar and Abhik Roy in the event of their arrest in connection with any crime to be registered on the complaint of Santhosh Nichani.
The petitioners were ordered to be released on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following mandatory conditions:
- The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of the order.
- The petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly, in any manner.
- They shall fully cooperate with the investigation by the concerned police and appear regularly before the court as and when required.
- They shall not abscond from their ordinary residence and shall furnish address proof to the concerned police station.
- They shall not involve themselves in any criminal offence while on bail.
- They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
- Any violation of these conditions shall grant liberty to the Investigating Officer to move the Court for cancellation of bail.