The Court of the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), presided over by Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2897/2024 on April 4, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 37-year-old Prabhath Kumar Upadhyay (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 262/2019 (C.C. No. 4469/2021) registered by the Hennur Police Station (investigated by CCB Police), Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for an offence punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from allegations concerning a educational consultancy operation. According to the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer:

• Modus Operandi: The petitioner, along with other co-accused, operated an entity named “Future Education Consultant” located near Christ Hospital, Bengaluru.
• Targeting NEET Candidates: The accused allegedly contacted candidates who had appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), promising them admissions and medical seats in prestigious colleges across Karnataka and India in exchange for money.
• Financial Misappropriation: It was alleged that the accused collected significant sums from candidates under the pretext of securing medical seats but failed to deliver on their promises, thereby defrauding multiple applicants.

Following a probe by the CCB/Hennur Police, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 420 IPC, naming Accused Nos. 1 through 5.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Prabhath Kumar Upadhyay (Petitioner / Accused No. 2): Aged 37 years, son of Anil Kumar Upadhyay, residing at No. 301, Akme Ballet, Behind Arena Mall, Dodda Nekkundi, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560037.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was innocent of the alleged offences, was a high-income tax-paying citizen, and had been falsely implicated in the charge sheet.
• Personal & Family Circumstances: The defense highlighted pressing family health requirements, noting the necessity to arrange or provide for a kidney donor.
• Completion of Investigation: The investigating agency had already completed its probe and submitted the final charge sheet (C.C. No. 4469/2021); hence, custodial interrogation was no longer required.
• Non-Capital Offence: The offence under Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and does not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Parity & Undertaking: Other co-accused in the case had already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner, being a permanent resident of Bengaluru, undertook to abide by all court conditions and furnish solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by submitting formal objections:

• Prima Facie Charge Sheet Material: The state argued that the submission of a detailed charge sheet by the investigating officer established a prima facie case of coordinated educational fraud targeting student candidates.
• Apprehension of Abscondance: Given the nature of financial cheating, the prosecution expressed concern that releasing the petitioner might result in non-appearance during trial proceedings or interference with prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the charge sheet, FIR records, and submissions, Judge A.V. Patil evaluated the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Completion of Investigation

The court observed that because the police investigation was complete and the charge sheet was already filed in court (C.C. No. 4469/2021), physical custody of Accused No. 2 was not required for further investigative steps.

2. Statutory Punishment and Magistrate Trial

The court noted that while Section 420 IPC is a non-bailable offence, it is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry mandatory penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused remains a matter to be proven during a full-fledged trial.

3. Principle of Parity and Local Roots

Noting that other co-accused listed in the charge sheet had already been enlarged on bail, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar consideration. The court concluded that since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the prosecution’s concerns regarding flight risk or trial cooperation could be adequately managed by imposing strict conditions.

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 Prabhath Kumar Upadhyay in Crime No. 262/2019 (C.C. No. 4469/2021) of Hennur Police Station.

The court directed that in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
• The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• The petitioner shall appear before the court during trial and co-operate for the disposal of the case.
• The petitioner shall not commit offences similar to the one alleged against him.
• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
• The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his address proof to the Investigating Officer.