A city civil and sessions court in Bengaluru has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a 28-year-old man, Baba Avez @ Babu, who is facing charges of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, presided over by LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Sri. N. Krishnaiah, rejected the plea after finding prima facie evidence of the accused’s involvement in a financial fraud where he allegedly cheated a former acquaintance of over Rs. 8 lakh. The order, pronounced on June 21, 2022, highlights the gravity of the economic offense, the need for custodial interrogation, and the accused’s prior involvement in a similar case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Baba Avez @ Babu, a resident of Jigani, Anekal Taluk, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 109/2022 registered by the J.P. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The offence alleged against him is punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
The petitioner’s defense argued that he was innocent, falsely implicated, and had already been released on regular bail in a similar, but separate, case (Crime No. 87/2022) registered by the Jigani Police. His counsel contended that prosecuting him in the current case, after being bailed in a related one, would amount to double jeopardy, violating his fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. He also offered to abide by any conditions the court might impose and cooperate with the investigation.
Prosecution’s Strong Opposition
The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition, asserting that there was sufficient prima facie material to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the fraud. The prosecution highlighted that the accused was also implicated in another similar case (Crime No. 87/2022), suggesting that he was a habitual offender. The key argument raised was that the investigation was still ongoing and granting bail at this juncture could allow the accused to commit similar offences, terrorize witnesses, or abscond, thereby hampering a fair investigation. The prosecutor insisted that custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the full extent of the scam.
Judicial Findings and Grounds for Rejection
The court meticulously examined the rival contentions and the material placed on record, specifically addressing the complainant’s allegations which detailed the fraud.
1. Prima Facie Case of Cheating Under Section 420 IPC:
The court noted the complainant’s statement that the petitioner, known since college days, initially contacted him under the pretext of his mother’s illness and need for money. Later, the petitioner allegedly lured the complainant to a Reliance Digital showroom in J.P. Nagar, claiming to work there and offering to arrange a ‘no cost EMI’ loan on a mobile phone for which he would receive an incentive. The crucial part of the allegation was that the petitioner scanned the complainant’s credit and debit cards and, without his full knowledge or consent, availed a loan of Rs. 8,37,061/-. The accused then allegedly cheated the complainant by neither returning the money nor paying the EMIs. The court concluded, “there is prima facie sufficient materials to show that, this petitioner has committed a fraud to innocent complainant in order to grab money and dishonestly cheated, which attract section 420 of IPC.”
2. Rejection of Double Jeopardy Claim:
Addressing the petitioner’s claim of ‘double jeopardy,’ the court held that while the offence was similar in nature to his previous case (Crime No. 87/2022), the specific date and place of the offence in the current case were “entirely different.” Therefore, the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents a person from being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offence, did not apply. The court, thus, found no merit in the argument that the present prosecution was legally barred.
3. Habitual Offender and Modus Operandi:
A significant factor in the rejection was the court’s observation regarding the petitioner’s criminal history. The existence of a prior similar offence led the court to infer that the accused “appears that he is an habitual offender.” Furthermore, the court detailed the petitioner’s ‘modus operandi’ which involves contacting innocent people, managing to obtain their debit and credit card details, and using them to cheat them out of money with a dishonest intention.
4. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation:
Given the gravity of the financial fraud and the sophisticated method employed, the court emphasized the vital role of police custody. It concluded that the petitioner “is required for custodial interrogation in this case.” The court also considered the potential impact on the society and the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, stating that if released, a “fair investigation cannot be conducted.”
Conclusion
The LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, finding the allegations substantial and the need for thorough investigation paramount, answered the primary point of consideration in the negative. The petition for anticipatory bail filed by Baba Avez @ Babu under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was consequently rejected, necessitating his arrest and custodial interrogation by the J.P. Nagar Police in connection with the cheating case.
This case underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in granting pre-arrest bail, particularly in cases of financial and economic fraud under Section 420 of the IPC, where the complexity of the crime and the accused’s background suggest a high risk to the public and the investigation process.
You might be interested in a detailed explanation of the legal concept of anticipatory bail What is Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 CrPC?. This video discusses why anticipatory bail applications can be rejected by the High Court, which is relevant to understanding the court’s discretion in the present case.