The Court of the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), holding concurrent charge of the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-67), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2808/2024 on March 27, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Pitabasha Acharya, Branch Manager at Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagar Branch, in connection with Crime No. 455/2024 registered by the CEN (Cyber, Economics, and Narcotics) Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) 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 (IT Act).

Factual Background and Cyber Fraud Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged on behalf of M/s. Creative Diesel Services Private Limited, a private corporate client maintaining an Overdraft (OD) account (No. 125004045742) with the Canara Bank Hanumanthanagar Branch.

According to the complaint:

• On March 2, 2024, at approximately 2:54 PM, a caller impersonating “Sri Raghavendra Prasad” contacted the complainant claiming an urgent need for a Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) fund transfer. The caller stated that an email request would be dispatched immediately and a hard copy cheque would follow later.
• The caller placed approximately 12 telephone calls to the bank/complainant and subsequently transmitted an email to the official branch email address from a domain creativedieselservicespvtltd@gmail.com at 4:04 PM.
• The email contained scanned copies of a corporate letterhead requesting an immediate RTGS transfer, attached with an edited cheque leaf displaying the signatures of three authorized company signatories.
• Relying on the urgent email request, the signatures on the attached digital cheque, and past banking interactions, the bank processed and authorized the RTGS transfer to two third-party accounts without prior telephonic or physical verification with the account holders.
• Subsequent internal verification revealed that the company letterhead was fake, the calling number did not belong to any director or employee of M/s. Creative Diesel Services Pvt. Ltd., the signatures/seals were digitally manipulated, and no official written request or physical cheque had ever been authorized by the company.
• The company alleged that the Bank Manager acted negligently or collusively by authorizing the fraudulent transaction without executing standard verification protocol, leading to the registration of Crime No. 455/2024 at the CEN Crime Police Station.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Pitabasha Acharya (Petitioner): Aged 52 years, son of Direndra Kumar Acharya, Manager at Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagar Branch, No. 1910, 50 Feet Main Road, Sunkenahalli, Gavipuram, Bengaluru – 560 019.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri G. Hanumanthareddy presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Long Career Record: The petitioner is a senior bank officer with over two decades of unblemished service at Canara Bank, having served as a Branch Manager for over two years.
• Absence of Criminal Intent or Malafides: The defense submitted that the transaction was executed in good faith during the ordinary course of business under persistent follow-up calls from an entity claiming to be a regular customer, without any criminal intent or personal gain.
• Lack of Direct Personal Allegations: Counsel maintained that the petitioner himself fell victim to an elaborate email spoofing and cyber fraud scheme executed by sophisticated third-party fraudsters using altered documents and domain impersonation.
• Non-Capital Statutory Penalties: The alleged offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, and 471, along with IT Act Sections 66(C) and 66(D), do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Local Identity and Undertaking: The applicant is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with verified employment credentials, promising full cooperation with the CEN Crime Police investigation and offering solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting formal objections emphasizing the gravity of cyber fraud:

• Unauthorized Transfer: The prosecution argued that the Bank Manager cleared substantial funds via RTGS without adhering to mandatory banking verification norms or obtaining original physical negotiable instruments.
• Habitual Offender Networks: The state submitted that cyber crime syndicates were involved in the operation and that custodial interrogation of bank personnel was necessary to unearth potential internal collusion or systemic lapses.
• Investigation Integrity: The prosecution expressed concern that granting pre-arrest protection during an active cyber investigation might lead to the destruction of electronic logs, witness tampering, or delays in trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR filings, banking communication records, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Absence of Capital Statutory Penalties

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that the penal provisions invoked under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC, alongside Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act, do not attract sentences of death or life imprisonment.

2. Good Faith Operational Processing vs. Criminal Guilt

The court noted that whether the Bank Manager acted with fraudulent intent (mens rea) or was duped by an external cyber spoofing operation is a matter to be established through a full-fledged trial. At the preliminary investigation stage, where the accused is a serving bank official willing to participate in procedural inquiries, custodial detention is not automatically required.

3. Safeguarding Investigation via Stringent Conditions

Holding that the petitioner is a long-standing bank employee with verified local residential and employment details, the court resolved the point for consideration in the affirmative. The court concluded that prosecution concerns regarding witness interference or investigation cooperation could be managed by imposing strict reporting directives.

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 the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Pitabasha Acharya in Crime No. 455/2024 of CEN Crime Police Station.

The court directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
• The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
• The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity.
• The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.