Bengaluru, India — The LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Judge S. Nataraj, has granted anticipatory bail to four individuals—Abdul Bari, Anjan Kumar, Bhaskar Jha, and Ranjith—in connection with a corporate fraud and cheating case involving a transaction of ₹1.5 Crore. The order, Crl.Misc. No. 7751 of 2023, was passed on August 19, 2023, providing protection from arrest in Cr. No. 117/2023 registered by the Viveknagar Police Station for offenses under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court’s decision hinged on the limited role of the petitioners, who were associated with a commission-based firm, in the alleged main financial fraud, the youth of the accused, and the fact that the primary accused (Accused No. 1) had already been arrested.

The Alleged Fraudulent Transaction

The case was initiated based on a complaint filed by Ritih Solutions, which alleged that they were induced into a sales agreement for agro products, specifically Maida and Wheat flour. The inducement allegedly came from Flybee Exim LLP (the company where petitioners 2 to 5 had their office) and another party.

According to the prosecution’s summary of the complaint:

• Flybee Exim initially provided a proposal to Ritih Solutions on April 8, 2023, offering to sell Maida flour at ₹24.50 per kg and Wheat flour at ₹24.20 per kg.
• The complainant company countered with an offer of ₹22.50 per kg.
• On April 9, 2023, the accused persons offered to supply 9,000 metric tons at ₹24.00 per kg and subsequently executed a letter of indent to the Royal Trade Company.
• Following this, the complainant company, Ritih Solutions, transferred a total of ₹1.5 Crore to Accused No. 1 (whose petition, Deepraj Mishra, was previously dismissed).
• The cheating was discovered on June 25, 2023, when the complainant company’s CEO visited Narasingpur, the alleged location of the mill, and found that Accused No. 1 did not possess the mill. The allegation is that the accused conspired to collect the advance amount without any intention of supplying the products.

Petitioner’s Defense and Court’s Rationale

The petitioners—Abdul Bari, Anjan Kumar, Bhaskar Jha, and Ranjith—argued that they were innocent and were not involved in the actual money transfer. They asserted that the transaction was solely between Ritih Solutions and Royal Trade Company. They clarified their company, Flybee Exim LLP, was merely “supposed to receive commission from Ritih Solutions for getting [the] deed signed at their desired price.” They stressed they had not received any commission from the complainant.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners had conspired with Accused No. 1 to induce the complainant, and their custodial interrogation was necessary. The prosecutor raised standard concerns that granting bail could lead to tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or commission of similar offenses.

However, the Court meticulously examined the specific role of the petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5) as described in the complaint. The judge observed that the primary collection of the ₹1.5 Crore was allegedly by Accused No. 1. The petitioners’ apparent role was limited to offering the deal and standing to gain a commission.

The court explicitly noted:

1. The petitioners “are young in age.”
2. They “have not received any commission from the complainant.”
3. Accused No. 1, who allegedly collected the large sum, “is already arrested and he has been taken for police custody.”

The judge held that the question of whether the petitioners had actively conspired with Accused No. 1 to cheat the complainant was a “matter of investigation and trial.” Given the circumstances, the judge concluded that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required now that the principal accused had been apprehended.

The Court further considered the guidelines set forth by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, which favors the grant of bail in non-heinous offenses, especially where imprisonment for death or life is not a potential sentence. Finding that the apprehension of the prosecution could be met with suitable conditions, the Court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

Mandatory Bail Conditions

The petition was allowed, and Abdul Bari, Anjan Kumar, Bhaskar Jha, and Ranjith were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to stringent conditions:

1. Execution of a personal bond for ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the IO on or before August 30, 2023, and thereafter as and when called upon for investigation purposes.
3. The petitioners shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses in any manner, directly or indirectly.
4. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
5. The petitioners shall not commit similar offenses.

The order includes a proviso that the prosecution remains at liberty to move for the cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated, ensuring the petitioners remain compliant throughout the investigation and trial process.