Former Employee Charged with Criminal Breach of Trust Secures Bail; Court Cites Completion of Investigation
On August 26, 2023, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Abhishek, a former employee accused of criminal breach of trust involving company cheques. The order, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7933/2023, directed the Bommanahalli Police Station to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 37/2020 (CC No. 14492/2021).
The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the fact that the investigation was already complete and the charge-sheet had been filed. The Judge concluded that since the accused’s presence was no longer required for custodial interrogation, and the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the accused was entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Background of the Cheque Fraud Case
The case was registered based on a complaint lodged by Sri. Yogesh Babu, the employer and complainant in the matter. The petitioner, Abhishek, was an employee working under the complainant at Mittal Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
Charges and Allegations
The petitioner faced charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the following offences:
| IPC Section | Nature of Offence (Simple Explanation) |
| Section 406 | Criminal Breach of Trust (general punishment) |
| Section 408 | Criminal Breach of Trust by a clerk or servant |
| Section 420 | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Not explicitly listed in the FIR, but discussed in the court’s reasoning) |
The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the charge-sheet, outlined the following sequence of events:
- Suspicion Raised: On January 29, 2020, a Mr. Jithesh of Geethanjali Silks, Chickpete, contacted the complainant regarding two cheques presented for discount in the name of Harikrishna Printers. The person who presented the cheques, identified only as ‘Shivakumar,’ was a stranger, raising suspicions.
- Petitioner’s Role: Upon enquiry, the complainant learned that the stranger was sent by the petitioner, Abhishek, to get the cheques discounted.
- Criminal Breach of Trust: The complainant alleged that the petitioner, as an employee, misused the company cheques to attempt to draw an amount, thereby committing criminal breach of trust against his employer.
Arguments Presented to the Court
The Petitioner’s Defence
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jagadeeshappa Gowda K.R., argued for the grant of anticipatory bail on several key grounds:
- Innocence: The petitioner claimed to be innocent and stated that the complaint was filed due to a misunderstanding between him and the Manager of Mittal Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
- Bail-friendly Offences: The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by the Court of Magistrate.
- Personal Connection: The petitioner asserted that the complainant is his uncle, suggesting a family angle to the dispute.
- Low Flight Risk: The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, has deep roots in society, and is ready to abide by any court-imposed conditions.
The Prosecution’s Opposition
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, arguing that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclose that the petitioner had indeed committed the alleged offences. He requested the court to dismiss the petition.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning for Bail
The LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge carefully evaluated the petitioner’s plea against the facts presented in the charge sheet and the applicable law.
1. Completion of Investigation
The most decisive factor in favour of the petitioner was the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet. The Court observed: “The IO has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the presence of petitioner is not at required.” This is a standard principle: once investigation is over, custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, reducing the grounds for opposing bail.
2. Non-Severity of Charges
The Judge considered the severity of the charges. While the First Information Report (FIR) specifically mentioned Sections 406 and 408 of the IPC (both punishable with imprisonment up to three or seven years, respectively), the Court also noted the potential inclusion of Section 420 (Cheating), which is non-bailable. However, the Court stressed that even Section 420 “is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.”
3. Triability by Magistrate
The fact that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of Magistrate further supported the decision to grant bail, as these are considered less serious matters compared to those triable by a Sessions Court.
4. Low Flight Risk and Cooperation
The Court accepted the petitioner’s claim of being a permanent resident of Bengaluru with roots in the city. The Judge ruled that the petitioner’s presence could be easily secured, and any apprehension regarding tampering with evidence could be “taken care of by putting suitable conditions.” The question of the petitioner’s actual involvement is a matter to be settled during the course of the trial.
Considering the totality of the circumstances—the completion of the investigation, the gravity of the offences alleged, and the petitioner’s fixed residence—the Court found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail.
The Court’s Final Order and Bail Conditions
The Court allowed the petition and ordered the grant of anticipatory bail to Abhishek.
Terms of Release:
In the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in Crime No. 37/2020, the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for ₹ 70,000/- (Seventy Thousand Rupees) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- Appearance Before Police: The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
- No Tampering: The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- Trial Cooperation: The petitioner shall appear before the Court during trial and co-operate for the disposal of the case.
- No Similar Offence: The petitioner shall not commit similar to the offence alleged against him.
- Investigation Cooperation: The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
- Furnishing ID: The petitioner shall furnish the attested copy of his Aadhaar card and present residential address proof to the I.O.
The Court’s order explicitly stated that the grant of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights and duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.