In a significant order delivered on August 23, 2022, the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), Sri T. Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8079/2022. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Sanchit Gaurav, Director of Sarvaloka Services on Call Pvt. Ltd., in connection with a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 6441/2022 lodged for an offence punishable under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Allegations

The dispute originated from a commercial transaction between the petitioner’s company, M/s Sarvaloka Services on Call Pvt. Ltd., and the complainant company, M/s Spurge IT Services (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Kathan N. Shah. M/s Spurge IT Services is engaged in the business of renting out laptops, accessories, and providing IT services to corporate clients on a monthly rental basis.

According to the private complaint, Sanchit Gaurav had approached the complainant firm to obtain laptops on lease. Following mutual discussions, several laptops were provided to the petitioner’s company on agreed monthly rental terms. The complainant subsequently alleged that the petitioner failed to clear the outstanding monthly rental payments and also omitted to return the rented laptop units, thereby alleging criminal cheating under Section 420 IPC.

The complainant filed a private criminal complaint (P.C.R. No. 6441/2022) before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru. Upon hearing the complainant, the magistrate court directed the Investigating Officer (IO) of Koramangala Police Station (Respondent No. 1) to conduct an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing for Sanchit Gaurav, advocate Sri Anupam Agarwal submitted the following grounds seeking pre-arrest protection:

• Civil Nature of Dispute: The transaction was purely commercial in nature concerning a contractual rental agreement. Non-payment of monthly rentals due to business disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic did not disclose a criminal intent or prima facie case of cheating.
• Willingness to Settle Dues: The petitioner submitted that he was ready and willing to clear genuine outstanding rental dues, if any, owed to the complainant.
• Malicious Prosecution: It was contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated solely to harass the petitioner and defame his corporate image.
• Mental and Financial Hardship: The petitioner, a 42-year-old corporate director residing at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, argued that an unexpected arrest would cause chaotic mental and financial distress to him and his business.
• Cooperation and Conditions: Being a permanent resident hailing from a respectable background, the petitioner undertook to regularly appear before the court, cooperate with police investigation, and furnish reliable sureties.

Prosecution Objections

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the application on technical grounds by filing statement of objections:

• Non-Maintainability: The prosecution contended that no formal First Information Report (FIR) had yet been registered against the petitioner at the Koramangala Police Station.
• Lack of Cause of Action: It was argued that in the absence of a registered criminal case, an anticipatory bail petition was premature and not maintainable.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the complaint copy, order sheet of the magistrate court, and arguments from both sides to evaluate Point No. 1: whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Maintainability of Pre-Arrest Bail Without FIR Registration

Addressing the prosecution’s objection regarding the absence of a registered FIR, Judge T. Govindaiah clarified settled principles governing Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Registration of an FIR is not a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an anticipatory bail petition.
• A reasonable apprehension of arrest is sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
• Since the XLI ACMM Court, Bengaluru had specifically referred the private complaint to the Koramangala Police Station for investigation, the registration of an FIR and impending police investigation were imminent, giving rise to a legitimate apprehension of arrest.

2. Commercial Dispute Considerations

The court observed that the petitioner had taken laptops on rental basis and defaulted on payments due to pandemic-related business disruptions. The court noted that the dispute essentially arose out of a commercial contract, justifying the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The alleged offence under Section 420 IPC does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.

The court explicitly affirmed that granting pre-arrest protection at this stage does not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence, which remains subject to investigation and trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri T. Govindaiah allowed the petition and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner, Sanchit Gaurav, is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the crime to be registered against him on the basis of the complaint lodged by M/s Spurge IT Services (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. He shall cooperate with the investigation conducted by the concerned police and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from his ordinary residence and shall furnish address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not involve himself in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

The court added that if any of the above conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer remains at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.