A Bengaluru Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to Anantha Rao Jadhav, a 54-year-old resident of Prakash Nagar, in connection with a private criminal complaint alleging offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The order, delivered by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), T. Govindaiah, on June 24, 2022, found the petitioner entitled to relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) given the nature of the dispute.

The case, registered as Crl.Misc.No.6081/2022, pertains to the petitioner’s application for pre-arrest bail in PCR No. 5037/2022. The petitioner was facing potential arrest for offences punishable under sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506B (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was pending before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

Background of the Case and Petitioner’s Arguments

The core of the dispute revolves around a complaint filed by Vikas Thimmappa, who alleged that about five years prior, he had discussed a house construction project with the accused, Anantha Rao Jadhav. Jadhav allegedly assured the complainant he could secure a bank loan for the construction. In the process, the complainant provided Jadhav with his Election ID card and a blank cheque from the Honkong and Shangai bank Corporation Limited.

The complainant asserted that the petitioner failed to secure the loan and, when asked to return the documents, dodged the issue, claiming they were lost. Subsequently, the petitioner is accused of filling in the blank cheque for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, forging the complainant’s signature, and presenting it for encashment. The cheque was dishonoured due to “Signature Differs.” Following this, the petitioner reportedly filed a false complaint against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act, 1881. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner misused the cheque for personal gain, and when the complainant approached the police, they refused to register a case, prompting the private complaint. Additionally, the petitioner allegedly threatened and abused the complainant, forcing him to withdraw the complaint.

In his anticipatory bail application, the petitioner, Anantha Rao Jadhav, argued that he had already filed a complaint against the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.2390/2019, which was pending before SCCH-2, Bengaluru. He claimed to be innocent and stated that the complaint was filed purely with the intention to harass him. Emphasizing his role as the sole breadwinning member of his family, including an aged mother, he assured the court of his cooperation with the Investigating Officer (IO), his deep roots in society as a law-abiding citizen, and his readiness to furnish surety and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Stance and Court’s Analysis

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, filed a statement of objections, primarily arguing for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that no case had been registered by the respondent police (Vijayanagar Police Station) against the petitioner for the alleged offence, thereby making the application for anticipatory bail not maintainable.

The court, however, focused on the facts presented by both sides. Justice T. Govindaiah observed that the transaction between the complainant and the petitioner appeared to be “purely civil in nature.” The court further noted that the dispute was “evident from the documents” submitted by both parties.

Crucially, the court determined that “at this stage it cannot be said the the petitioner has cheated the complainant.” Given that the transactions are “born out of the documents,” the judge concluded that there was no necessity for any custodial investigation of the petitioner, as there could not be any chance of hampering the investigation by the petitioner. Considering the petitioner’s claim of being a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions, the court found the petitioner entitled to the relief sought. The court also noted that the prosecution’s apprehension could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

In allowing the petition, the court ordered Anantha Rao Jadhav to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the IO as and when called for and cooperate with the investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.
5. The petitioner shall not get involved in any criminal activities.
6. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof.
7. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the court.

The order concluded by stating that if any of the imposed conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s application of the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted when the primary facts of the case suggest a civil dispute, and custodial interrogation is not necessary to advance the investigation.