The Court of the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru City, presided over by Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF., delivered a judicial order on April 6, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2977/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to Sri Deepak S. Sunderjan in connection with Crime No. 165/2023 of the Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 120, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 206/2022) filed by the complainant, M/s. Eagle Security Agency, which was referred to the respondent police for investigation, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 165/2023:

• Alleged Agreement and Money Transfer: The complainant alleged that the company entered into an agreement on July 23, 2022, with one Prabhakaran and Samson Anthony at the instance of an employee named Sharan, pursuant to which the complainant transferred ₹10,00,000/- to the bank account of the petitioner.
• Non-Performance and Cheque Bounce: Even after a lapse of one month from the agreement date, the work order was not provided. When the company demanded a refund, the petitioner allegedly issued seven blank cheques that subsequently bounced upon presentation, leading to the allegation of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy. It was also noted that a separate cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending in C.C. No. 55260/2023 between the parties.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Deepak S. Sunderjan (Petitioner / Accused)
• Father’s Name: N. Sheshadri
• Age: About 43 years
• Residential Address: Krishna Diamond Apartment, B-Block, Flat No. 002, 20th Main, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru – 560092.
• Legal Representation: Sri Shahji T. Varghese, Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Innocence and Civil Nature of Dispute: The defense contended that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had no intention to deceive from the outset, and had been falsely implicated. Counsel argued that the entire transaction was civil in nature arising out of a business agreement, and the complainant was improperly attempting to give it a criminal color to extract money, especially given the pending Section 138 cheque bounce proceedings.
2. Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioner expressed genuine apprehension of arrest and undertook to abide by all conditions and cooperate fully with the investigation without tampering with evidence.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed formal objections and the Investigating Officer’s report, arguing that the petitioner committed serious economic offences involving financial deception.
2. Risk of Flight and Interference: The state contended that the investigation was ongoing and that releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail could lead to abscondance, witness intimidation, or interference with the probe.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the records, PCR contents, and rival arguments, Judge Kalpana M.S. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Nature of Offences: The court observed that the alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life, and are triable by a Magistrate.
2. Civil Predominance: The court noted that the core dispute arose from a financial agreement between the parties, indicating that the matter was primarily civil in nature and being given a criminal color.
3. Applicability of Precedent: Relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2023 SC 1570) and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022 Live Law (SC) 577), alongside the doctrine that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that custodial interrogation was unwarranted since the case was primarily based on documentary evidence and agreement records.
4. Securing Investigation: Concluding that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no reported criminal antecedents and a low flight risk, the court held that the prosecution’s concerns could be effectively met by imposing stringent conditions.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court directed the Ashok Nagar police to release Sri Deepak S. Sunderjan on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 165/2023, upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Investigative Appearance: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of the order, and make himself available as and when called.
2. Address Proof: He shall furnish valid address proof documents for himself and his sureties at the time of executing sureties.
3. Periodic Attendance: He shall mark his attendance at the respondent police station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
4. No Witness Tampering: He 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 facts to the Investigating Officer or trial court.
5. Travel Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
6. Non-Recidivism: He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
7. Intimation of Address Change: In the event of any change in residential address, the petitioner and his sureties shall intimate the trial court immediately without fail.