In a significant judicial order passed on April 8, 2024, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2963/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Anoop Kumar P in connection with Crime No. 1625/2023 registered by the South CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was facing apprehension of arrest for offences punishable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by personation using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Factual Background and Cyber Crime Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion following a complaint filed by a victim of an elaborate cryptocurrency investment scam. The complainant received an unsolicited WhatsApp message from an international number claiming that the sender had been investing in cryptocurrency for four years on a website called “deuncoin” and achieving high returns.

The perpetrator shared a registration link and directed the complainant to transfer an initial deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- to a specified bank account. Upon checking the platform, the complainant observed a balance of 200 USDT and a dividend credit of 230 USD. Subsequent transactions indicated a total projected profit of Rs. 2,64,33,400/-.

When the complainant attempted to withdraw the accumulated profits, the fraudsters demanded a 15% tax payment upfront. Believing the representations, the complainant transferred additional funds, ultimately transferring a total sum of Rs. 76,20,300/- across various bank accounts requested by the operators before realizing the fraudulent nature of the scheme.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Anoop Kumar P: Aged 38 years, son of Sri Viswanathan P, residing at 21/1525, Sivalayam, Thachilottu Thazham, Kommeri, Valayanad, Mankavu S.O., Kozhikode, Kerala.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Siddharth Suman submitted several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent, had no knowledge of the alleged crime, and was falsely implicated in the investigation.
• Absence of Criminal Antecedents: It was submitted that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, hails from a respectable family, and has deep roots in society.
• Non-Capital Offences: Counsel emphasized that the alleged offences under the IPC and IT Act do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Section 41A Notice: The petitioner received a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. from the investigating officer, demonstrating a real and immediate apprehension of arrest.
• Cooperation: The petitioner assured the court of his full cooperation with the investigation and willingness to furnish solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor filed objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report, strongly opposing the grant of anticipatory bail:

• Gravity of Cyber Fraud: The prosecution contended that the case involved a sophisticated multi-step online fraud resulting in financial loss exceeding Rs. 76 Lakhs.
• Ongoing Investigation: It was argued that the investigation was at a crucial stage, requiring custodial interrogation to trace the digital footprint and monetary trail.
• Risk of Absconding and Witness Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if granted pre-arrest bail, the outstation petitioner might abscond, evade investigation, or tamper with prosecution evidence.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, case records, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for pre-arrest protection.

1. Nature of Offences and Precedents

Judge Nisharani A.C. noted that the offences alleged under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, as well as Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act, are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The court referred to Karnataka High Court rulings [2014(3) KCCR 1884 and 2014(2) KCCR 1544], establishing that since Section 420 IPC is neither punishable with death or life imprisonment nor exclusively triable by a Court of Session, anticipatory bail can be granted with appropriate conditions.

2. Primary Reliance on Electronic Evidence

The court observed that the core of the prosecution case relies heavily on electronic evidence and financial account analysis. Upon reviewing the Investigating Officer’s report, the court found that no specific necessity for custodial interrogation was substantiated that could not be achieved through conditional cooperation.

3. Outstation Residence and Section 41A Notice

The court held that the service of a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice established the petitioner’s legitimate apprehension of arrest. Furthermore, the cause title confirmed the petitioner’s permanent residence in Kozhikode, Kerala, meaning his presence could be secured through appropriate attendance conditions.

Holding that prosecution concerns regarding flight risk or witness interference could be effectively addressed through stringent conditions, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

It remains a settled principle of criminal law that an order granting pre-arrest protection is a procedural safeguard and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate merits of the case, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, C/C LXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Nisharani A.C. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 1625/2023 of the respondent police, he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of this order and shall cooperate in the investigation whenever called.
3. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the respondent Police Station once in two months on the 2nd Saturday of every month till the filing of the charge-sheet.
4. The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
5. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his sureties.
6. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
7. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
8. If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above conditions, this bail order automatically stands cancelled.