In a significant judicial order delivered on January 11, 2023, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70), Sri Rajesh Karnam K., B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M., allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12720/2022. The court granted regular bail to Vijay Kumar Shival in connection with Crime No. 155/2022 registered by the V.V. Puram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution Allegations and Factual Background

The criminal proceedings were set into motion following a complaint lodged by a dry fruits merchant running a business at Centrinan Building, New Taragupet, 3rd Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. According to the complainant, approximately three months prior to filing the complaint, the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Shival, approached him proposing to set up an e-commerce vendor account to market and sell dry fruits through Amazon.

The complainant provided dry fruit samples and price quotations for the e-commerce store setup. Relying on representations made by the petitioner, the complainant transferred a total sum of ₹60,000,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) via RTGS in connection with the business expansion.

When the petitioner subsequently demanded additional funds, the complainant grew suspicious and made direct inquiries with Amazon India. Upon discovering that Amazon had no business connection with Vijay Kumar Shival, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging cheating and forgery.

Following the complaint, the V.V. Puram Police arrested the petitioner on December 6, 2022, produced him before the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru, and secured his remand to judicial custody.

The cause title captures the personal details of the petitioner:

• Vijay Kumar Shival: Aged 37 years, son of Suresh Shival, residing at No. 4-7-329, 4th Floor, Koamath Basthi Nammapalli Basthi, Isakai Bazaar, Himayath Nagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana; permanent address at No. Nil Saleem Nagar, Flyover Pillar 475, opposite Malakpet, Hyderabad.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel urged the following grounds seeking enlargement on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Business Transaction and Validity: Defense counsel submitted that the transaction arose from an actual e-commerce business relationship. The petitioner produced an e-commerce business certificate valid up to September 13, 2025, issued by the Director and General Manager of Amazon India, establishing that he was recognized as an e-commerce trader.
• Unexplained Delay in Complaint: The defense pointed out an unexcused delay in lodging the complaint from September 8, 2022, to December 5, 2022, arguing that it cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s allegations.
• Absence of Criminal Intent or Misappropriation: It was argued that the complainant lodged a false complaint out of unfulfilled expectations of overnight multi-crore profits, thereby jeopardizing the petitioner’s legitimate business operations.
• Personal and Family Circumstances: Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s mother was seriously ill and undergoing treatment in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner provided complete identification details of himself and his family members, establishing deep roots in society and permanent residence in Hyderabad.
• Precedent and Principle of Bail: Citing the decision reported in 2019 (5) KCCR 631, counsel submitted that “bail is the rule” and prolonged judicial detention prior to trial was unwarranted when conditions could safeguard the investigation.

Prosecution Objections and Investigating Officer’s Report

The Public Prosecutor, accompanied by the Investigating Officer (IO), strongly opposed the bail application, raising the following objections:

• Allegations of E-Commerce Forgery and Misrepresentation: The prosecution submitted that the petitioner created forged Amazon documents to deceive the complainant and misrepresent his business authorization.
• Misappropriation of Monies: The IO submitted a report and Case Diary (CD) indicating that the transferred ₹60,000,000/- was diverted for the petitioner’s personal use, including purchasing gold ornaments in Hyderabad, spending ₹25,000,000/- toward real estate acquisition, and transferring ₹1,000,000 to ₹1,100,000 to personal acquaintances.
• Risk of Absconding and Evidence Tampering: The prosecution argued that as the investigation was active and the charge-sheet was not yet filed, enlarging the outstation petitioner on bail would hamper further document verification with Amazon India and create a flight risk.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the complaint, Case Diary materials, produced business certificates, and rival arguments to evaluate Point No. 1: whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

1. Civil Nature of Underlying Commercial Dispute

Judge Rajesh Karnam K. observed that the dealings between the parties stemmed from business transactions concerning e-commerce vendor enablement. The court held that determining whether the petitioner committed fraudulent deception or defaulted on commercial commitments required trial and ongoing investigation, but the commercial origin of the interaction weighed in favor of granting pre-trial bail.

2. Period of Custody and Cooperation

The court noted that the petitioner had been in continuous judicial custody since his initial remand on December 6, 2022. Balancing the necessity of police investigation with the rights of the accused, the court held that further pre-trial incarceration was unnecessary provided the petitioner submitted to stringent security and attendance conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a bail application at the pre-trial stage is an evaluation of prima facie materials and does not constitute a final determination of the accused person’s guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Sri Rajesh Karnam K. allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

In the event of arrest / release from custody, the respondent police are directed to release the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 155/2022 of V.V. Puram Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, and 468 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

1. The accused shall furnish surety for an amount of ₹60,000,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs), secured by any immovable property of himself or his family members, along with a cash surety of ₹5,000/-.
2. The accused shall not threaten prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
4. The petitioner shall furnish his residential proof and all business particulars. Hailing from Hyderabad, he shall furnish appropriate permanent residence documents and proof of his business location.
5. The petitioner shall furnish his bank account particulars before the trial court.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
7. The accused shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates without fail.