In a notable judicial order passed on April 10, 2024, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2982/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Dr. G. Venkataramana Reddy (Accused No. 1), Smt. Usha Reddy (Accused No. 2), and Smt. Shoba (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 506/2024 registered by the South CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 66(C) (identity theft), 66(D) (cheating by personation using computer resource), and 67 (publishing obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, along with Sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Cyber Defamation Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. R. Mohisha, aged 25 years. According to the complainant, she contracted an inter-caste love marriage with one Manjunathaswamy on September 24, 2023. The complainant alleged that her husband’s family members disapproved of the inter-caste union and persistently pressured him to seek a divorce.

When her husband refused to divorce her, the accused persons allegedly created multiple fake profiles on social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, under handles such as trader1045786, @monisha wife of cheater, manishavskiran, and manjuwetvarsha. The complainant alleged that the accused used these accounts to publish defamatory posts targeting her and created group chats incorporating her and her husband’s names to circulate malicious statements. Although some of the social media accounts were subsequently deleted following family confrontations, the handle trader1045786 remained active, prompting her to lodge a formal cybercrime complaint.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Dr. G. Venkataramana Reddy (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 70 years, son of late Govindhappa, Retired Government Doctor and Retired Professor at Victoria Hospital, residing at No. L68, 3rd Main Road, 6th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru.
• Smt. Usha Reddy (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 68 years, wife of Dr. G. Venkataramana Reddy, residing at HSR Layout, Bengaluru.
• Smt. Shoba (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged 62 years, wife of late Udayashankar, residing at Shankar Mutt Main Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

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

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged cyber offences, had not created the social media handles, and were falsely implicated due to family friction following the inter-caste marriage.
• Senior Citizenship and Professional Standing: Petitioner No. 1 is a 70-year-old retired government doctor and former medical professor at Victoria Hospital, while Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are senior citizens aged 68 and 62 years respectively.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 66(C), 66(D), and 67 of the IT Act and Sections 419 and 509 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
• Absence of Need for Custodial Interrogation: The defence submitted that digital/electronic evidence is maintained on servers and third-party platforms, making physical custodial interrogation unnecessary.
• Undertaking: The petitioners promised to cooperate fully with the CEN Crime Police investigation, submit to all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Ongoing CEN Investigation: The investigation was in its preliminary stages, and releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail would hamper efforts to trace digital footprints, IP addresses, and device logs.
• Apprehension of Evidence Tampering: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might delete remaining active social media accounts, tamper with digital evidence, threaten prosecution witnesses, or evade investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, digital allegations, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Family Dispute Context and Non-Capital Penalties

Judge Manjunatha observed that the certified copies of the FIR and complaint established an underlying family dispute arising out of an inter-caste marriage. The court noted that even assuming a prima facie case existed, the offences under the IT Act and IPC alleged in the FIR are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract sentences of death or life imprisonment.

2. Lack of Necessity for Custodial Detention

The court highlighted that physical custodial interrogation of senior citizens aged 70, 68, and 62 years was not warranted for the alleged cyber offenses. Holding that full-fledged trial is the proper forum to establish guilt or innocence regarding the creation of social media handles, the court noted that no fruitful judicial purpose would be served by allowing the police to arrest and detain the elderly family members in custody.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Recognizing that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru with verifiable local addresses and established standing in society, the court observed that the risk of them absconding was minimal and that the prosecution’s concerns could be effectively safeguarded by imposing strict conditions.

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, XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 506/2024 of South CEN Crime Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required till the final report is filed and shall assist in further investigation of the case.
2. The petitioners shall surrender before the concerned police within 15 days from the date of this order without fail.
3. They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or investigating officer.
4. They shall not hamper further investigation of the case, tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner, or intimidate the complainant.
5. They shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
6. They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission.
8. They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior intimation.
9. They shall furnish a notarized copy of their residential identity/address proof.

Note: In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the bail granted shall stand automatically canceled.