In a significant ruling concerning an alleged case of theft by an employee, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64) in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Anand.R, who was accused of stealing hardware items worth approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- from his employer’s shop.

The court’s order, dated September 14, 2023, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), providing relief to Anand.R from immediate arrest in connection with Crime No. 175/2023 registered at the Subramanyanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with theft by a clerk or servant of property in possession of the master.

The Allegations: CCTV Footage Used as Primary Evidence

The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged on August 19, 2023, by Sri. Ashish G. Purohith, the proprietor of Sri Shyam Enterprises, a hardware shop located on Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bengaluru.

The complainant stated that for several months, items had been going missing from his shop. His suspicions were confirmed on August 12, 2023, when he reviewed the CCTV camera footage installed inside the premises. The footage allegedly captured the petitioner, Anand.R, an employee at the shop, taking two boxes of hinges and two drawer boxes at approximately 10:00 a.m. and dispatching them via an auto-rickshaw.

Upon enquiry, the complainant claimed that the petitioner pleaded guilty, citing financial problems as the reason for the theft, and assured the employer that he would return the stolen goods. However, the petitioner subsequently did not return to the shop or answer the complainant’s phone calls. The cumulative value of the hardware items allegedly stolen by the petitioner over a two-month period, without the knowledge of the proprietor, was estimated at Rs. 2 lakhs.

The Petitioner’s Defence and Court’s Observations

Anand.R, represented by his counsel, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that he was innocent and was being falsely implicated. His petition suggested that the complaint was lodged as an act of revenge because the petitioner and other workers had collectively asked for an enhancement in their salary and other allowances. He affirmed his status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The learned Public Prosecutor (P.P.) contested the application, asserting that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of the offence.

The court, presided over by Sri. A.V. Patil, meticulously examined the facts and the gravity of the alleged offence. The Judge’s reasoning for granting the bail was based on several key judicial considerations:

1. Nature of the Offence and Punishment: The court noted that the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC, though non-bailable, is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. This factor is often a primary consideration in determining eligibility for pre-arrest bail, particularly when stringent bail provisions like those under the NDPS Act are not applicable.
2. Delay in Filing the Complaint: The court pointed out an “inordinate delay” in filing the complaint, noting the alleged incident captured on CCTV occurred on August 12, 2023, but the complaint was only filed a week later, on August 19, 2023.
3. Preservation of Evidence: Crucially, the court observed that the core evidence—the alleged theft—was captured on the shop’s CCTV footage. Since the key evidence is recorded and fixed, the question of tampering with the CCTV footage is absent. The truth of the matter, the court stated, is ultimately to be ascertained during the course of the trial.
4. Jurisdiction and Residence: The offence is triable by a Court of Magistrate, and the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, reducing the risk of absconding.

The court ultimately concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner’s release could be addressed by imposing suitable conditions. It held that considering the facts, the gravity of the offence, the prescribed punishment, and the petitioner’s residency, he was entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

The petition was allowed, and the court directed that in the event of his arrest, Anand.R be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 60,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to stringent conditions:

• The petitioner must appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
• He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• He must appear before the Court during the trial and cooperate for the disposal of the case.
• He shall not commit similar offences.
• He must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when called for investigation.
• He is required to furnish the attested copy of his Aadhaar card and present residential address proof to the I.O.

The order also explicitly clarified that the grant of anticipatory bail does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights and duties of the police or the investigating agency to continue their investigation into the charges against the petitioner. The investigation will now proceed with the petitioner free from arrest, focusing on gathering further evidence to support the charges under Section 381 of the IPC.