The Court of the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64) at Bengaluru, presided over by Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 8, 2024, allowing an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking transit anticipatory bail. The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2970/2024 extended temporary pre-arrest protection to Sri Srinivas V., proprietor of M/s Ahuja and Co., in connection with Crime No. 28/2022 registered by the Central Crime Station (CCS) Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Andhra Pradesh, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 464, 467, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged on June 21, 2022, by Sri Mahesh E., Senior Manager of the Bank of India, Tirupati Branch (K.T. Road):

• CGTMSE Scheme Loan Sanction: According to the complaint, various individuals approached the bank seeking financial assistance under the Government of India’s CGTMSE scheme to establish manufacturing units, submitting loan applications alongside quotations, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), advance receipts, and KYC documents.
• Allegations Against M/s Ahuja and Co.: Specifically, at Serial No. 1, a customer of M/s Sumedha Industries was sanctioned a term loan and cash credit facility totaling ₹50 Lakhs on December 24, 2013, after submitting machinery purchase quotations from M/s Ahuja and Co. for manufacturing disposable pillow covers.
• Discovery of Fraud: During subsequent bank inspections, the bank alleged that M/s Ahuja and Co. was a bogus entity, that the quotations and advance receipts were fabricated documents, and that loan funds totaling ₹50 Lakhs were siphoned off by the borrowers. Following investigations that also drew the involvement of central agencies, the Tirupati CCS Police registered an FIR against the entities and individuals named in the complaint.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Srinivas V.
• Age: About 42 years
• Designation: Proprietor, M/s Ahuja and Co.
• Residential Address: No. 1, Mayura Nilaya, Srinivasanagara, Srinagara, Bengaluru.
• Legal Representation: Sri N. Uday Kumar, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Public Prosecutor

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Legitimacy of Business: The petitioner asserted his absolute innocence, stating that M/s Ahuja and Co. is a legitimate business holding valid Value Added Tax (VAT) registration in Form No. 7, filing Income Tax Returns, and possessing a valid Commercial Tax Department TIN number (29350678480) with recorded tax purchase invoice entries.
2. Fabrication by Third Parties: Counsel argued that the petitioner never issued any invoices to the loan applicant (Mr. Komandur Elyavalli Koushik) and that bank officials failed to conduct basic due diligence or verify invoices prior to loan disbursement. Instead, co-accused individuals had allegedly created bogus invoices using the petitioner’s company name.
3. Inordinate Delay and Apprehension: The defense highlighted that the underlying transaction occurred on December 24, 2013, but the FIR was registered on June 21, 2022—a lapse of nearly a decade—and police contacts in 2024 without formal notice created a genuine apprehension of arbitrary arrest, necessitating transit protection to approach the jurisdictional court in Tirupati.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the petition, FIR contents, and available records, Judge A.V. Patil recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Reasonable Apprehension of Arrest: The court observed that because the petitioner’s proprietary firm, M/s Ahuja and Co., was implicated in the FIR relating to non-bailable offences under Section 420 IPC, the petitioner harbored a legitimate and well-founded apprehension of arrest by out-of-state police authorities.
2. Need for Transit Protection: Acknowledging that Tirupati is located at a considerable distance from Bengaluru, the sessions judge noted that the petitioner required reasonable legal protection and adequate time to approach the competent jurisdictional court in Tirupati for substantive relief.
3. Scope of Transit Anticipatory Bail: The court emphasized that when considering a transit anticipatory bail application for a limited duration, a deep evaluation of the merits of the underlying allegations is unnecessary. The filing of the petition itself demonstrated the petitioner’s willingness to submit to the legal process rather than abscond.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

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

• Transit Protection Granted: In the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 28/2022 of CCS Police Station, Tirupati, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹80,000/- with one surety for the like sum.
• Time Limitation: This transit anticipatory bail order shall remain in force for a limited period of three weeks from the date of the order (i.e., valid until April 28, 2024), enabling the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court in Tirupati.
• Preservation of Police Powers: The court explicitly clarified that this transit protection does not in any manner restrict or limit the rights and duties of the police or investigating agency to carry out a full investigation into the charges against the petitioner.