In a notable judicial order passed on April 1, 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. 2880/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Dinesh Kumar V (Accused No. 3) and Praveen Kumar V (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 153/2020 (currently pending as C.C. No. 30896/2021) registered by the Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 420 (cheating), 380 (theft in dwelling house/building), and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the Section Manager of Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd., who was in charge of stock management for the South Zone at the company’s warehouse located at BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.

According to the prosecution case, during a routine stock verification on October 7, 2020, conducted by the complainant along with staff members and warehouse executives (Accused Nos. 1 and 2), a major discrepancy was detected:

• A physical shortage of 236 tyres was uncovered in the warehouse inventory.
• Approximately 180 tyres of varying sizes had been fraudulently invoiced to various dealers without any genuine demand or purchase order.
• The total value of the missing and falsely invoiced inventory was estimated between ₹35,000,000 and ₹40,000,000 (₹35 Lakhs to ₹40 Lakhs).

The key to the warehouse was maintained by Senior Executive Naveen (Accused No. 1), assisted by Kolalappan (Accused No. 2). During initial questioning, Accused No. 1 admitted to misappropriating 335 tyres, creating fake dealer invoices for 180 tyres, and illegally selling a portion of the stolen stock to third parties. Subsequent police investigation implicated the petitioners—who run a local business under the name ‘Sri Tyre Zone’—as receiving or purchasing the misappropriated tyres, leading to charges under Sections 406, 408, 420, 380, and 411 IPC.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Dinesh Kumar V (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 3): Aged 36 years, son of Vijaya Kumar K.
• Praveen Kumar V (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 4): Aged 32 years, son of Vijaya Kumar K.
• Address: Both residing at No. 42/A, 2nd Floor, 31 A Cross, 7th Block, NSVK BIA School, Jayanagar 4th Block, Bengaluru – 560 011.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Vinod V. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Independent Business: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had been falsely implicated, and were legitimate business owners running ‘Sri Tyre Zone’ with no involvement in the warehouse theft or misappropriation.
• Completion of Investigation: The defence highlighted that the Banashankari Police had fully completed the investigation and filed a formal charge-sheet (C.C. No. 30896/2021), rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.
• Ground of Parity: Attention was drawn to the fact that co-accused persons (Accused Nos. 2 and 3/co-defendants) had already been granted bail by the court in Crl. Misc. No. 7039/2020 and Crl. Misc. No. 9667/2020.
• Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioners belong to a respectable family, hold fixed residential abodes in Bengaluru, and possess no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The petitioners promised to abide by all conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties for their regular appearance.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections alongside the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Prima Facie Case and Commercial Scale Fraud: The prosecution submitted that charge-sheet materials, inventory logs, and recovery records clearly established the petitioners’ role in receiving and dealing in stolen commercial tyre stock worth over ₹35 Lakhs.
• Apprehension of Absconding: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might abscond, threaten prosecution witnesses, or evade trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, charge-sheet records, business details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Status of Investigation and Lack of Custodial Need

Judge Nisharani A.C. observed that because the police had completed the entire investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners was no longer required.

2. Ground of Parity and Non-Capital Penalties

The court noted that co-accused persons connected to the transaction had already been enlarged on bail in earlier proceedings (Crl. Misc. No. 7039/2020 and 9667/2020). Furthermore, none of the offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 380, and 411 IPC carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and the ultimate criminal liability must be determined through a full-fledged trial.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Examining the residential address proof and Aadhaar cards submitted by the petitioners, the court found that both brothers were permanent residents of Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, 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 petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in C.C. No. 30896/2021 (Crime No. 153/2020) of Banashankari Police Station, they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for each petitioner for the likesum amount.
2. The petitioners shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall furnish their residential address proof and that of their sureties.
4. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
6. If the petitioners fail to obey any of the above-stated conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand canceled.