In a significant judicial decision concerning financial dispute allegations, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70) at Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to 52-year-old Smt. Manjula in connection with Crime No. 196/2019 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station. The order was pronounced by Sri Rajesh Karnam K., Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9043/2022. The court extended the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the grounds of parity, noting that the petitioner’s husband and co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court of Karnataka.

Background of the Prosecution Case

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Lochan S. Morey on behalf of M/s Horsepower Associates Trading LLC, a UAE-based entity. The complaint was initially submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru District, on January 9, 2017, through the Consulate General of India in Dubai.

According to the complaint details, M/s Horsepower Associates Trading LLC had invested a substantial sum of Rs. 29,25,00,000/- with Sri Shankara Financiers and Consultants, managed by its partners N. Srinivas Prasad and Binish Krishnan. Following the eventual cancellation of the underlying investment transaction, the partners refunded only Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, leaving an unpaid outstanding balance of Rs. 24,25,00,000/-.

The prosecution alleged that on June 5, 2016, petitioner Smt. Manjula acted as a mediator and assumed responsibility for ensuring the repayment of the remaining Rs. 24,25,00,000/- to the investor company. However, because no further payments were remitted despite repeated requests, the investor filed a formal criminal complaint alleging cheating and breach of trust. Based on these allegations, the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police registered Crime No. 196/2019 for offenses punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri S.S. Chalke, petitioner Smt. Manjula moved the Sessions Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. The primary contentions submitted by the defense included:

1. False Implication: The petitioner maintained that the complaint was false and that she was improperly roped into the case without having played any active or operational role in the underlying financial transactions.
2. Absence of Specific Allegations: Counsel argued that the complaint lacked specific actionable allegations against the petitioner that could constitute criminal offenses under Sections 406 or 420 IPC.
3. Ground of Parity: The defense highlighted that the petitioner’s husband and co-accused, Suresh Nagaraj Shastry, had already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 254/2020. The petitioner claimed entitlement to anticipatory bail on the principle of parity as she stood on the exact same footing.
4. Willingness to Cooperate: The petitioner expressed complete readiness to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court to secure her release.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail on behalf of the State, submitting detailed objections and a status report:

1. Magnitude of Financial Loss: The prosecution emphasized that the case involved a huge financial transaction totaling Rs. 24.25 crores that required deep investigative scrutiny.
2. Risk of Interference: The State expressed apprehension that if granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner might tamper with prosecution evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee from the jurisdiction of the court to evade trial.

Judicial Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Judge Sri Rajesh Karnam K. evaluated the material on record to decide whether the petitioner was justified in seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Completion of Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet

Upon evaluating the prosecution records, the court observed that the police investigation in Crime No. 196/2019 had already been completed and the formal charge sheet had been filed before the jurisdictional trial court. Consequently, the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner was no longer warranted for the purpose of gathering evidence.

Application of Principle of Parity

The court closely examined the order copy of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 254/2020, which had granted bail to co-accused Suresh Nagaraj Shastry (the petitioner’s husband). Finding that petitioner Smt. Manjula stood on the same factual footing as her co-accused husband, the court held that she was entitled to the benefit of parity.

Recognizing that the petitioner was a 52-year-old woman willing to comply with trial requirements, the court concluded that her apprehension of arrest was well-founded and that sufficient grounds existed to grant anticipatory bail subject to protective conditions.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on September 27, 2022.

The court ordered that in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 196/2019, the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station shall release petitioner Smt. Manjula upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The grant of anticipatory bail was subjected to the following mandatory conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The petitioner shall not threaten prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not indulge in any offenses while released on bail.
4. The petitioner shall furnish correct address proof documents before the trial court.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly during hearings.