In a significant development in the ongoing Cr.No.479/2023 case, the LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, Smt. Kalpana M.S., granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Anil Kumar V. (Accused No. 7), in an order dated September 5, 2023. The petition was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning offenses punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), primarily related to extortion.

The case, which was registered on August 28, 2023, and decided swiftly just eight days later, involves allegations against Anil Kumar V. and six other co-accused. The complainant, Saadiq Khan, a mutton shop owner, reported that certain individuals, including one Atmananda and Anand, demanded a sum of ₹5,00,000, threatening to seize his shop if he failed to comply. The complaint further alleges that the complainant initially paid ₹2,00,000, and subsequently, additional amounts totaling over ₹1,00,000 were extorted on various dates, even after the shop was purportedly seized by police personnel brought by the accused. The complaint also mentioned demands for online transfer of money.

The Petitioner, Anil Kumar V., was represented by Sri. Rudresh A.R., Advocate. The defense vehemently argued that the petitioner was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no criminal antecedents. A key point raised was that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned either in the initial complaint or the First Information Report (FIR). Furthermore, the defense contested that the PhonePe number cited in the Investigating Officer’s report did not belong to the petitioner. Stressing the petitioner’s respectable background and permanent residence in Bengaluru, the counsel sought pre-arrest bail, citing a serious apprehension of arrest.

The Respondent, the State of Karnataka, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, filed an objection statement, supported by a report from the Investigating Officer of the CCB Police Station (West), Bengaluru, opposing the bail application.

The Court carefully considered the arguments, the materials on record, and the nature of the offenses. The presiding Judge, Smt. Kalpana M.S., noted that the alleged offense under Section 384 IPC is triable by a Magistrate and is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This factor significantly influences the consideration for bail, aligning with the legal doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur V/s. Balachandh @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447), which famously laid down that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” This doctrine is essential for safeguarding the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also highlighted several factors that raised doubts about the prosecution’s case at this preliminary stage. Specifically, the order pointed to a delay in lodging the FIR and questioned the lack of clarity regarding why the complainant paid money to the accused persons on various occasions, particularly the payment of ₹1,00,000 even after the shop was seized by the police. These points, in the Court’s view, created “doubt in the mind of court.” Crucially, the absence of any report of criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the presence of a permanent place of abode in Bengaluru minimizing the risk of the petitioner fleeing from justice were strong mitigating factors.

Referring to the recent directive from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court stressed the need to “struck the balance between individual liberty and humiliation due to unjustifiable detention against free and fair trial as well as welfare of society.”

In conclusion, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s application and answered Point No. 1 (entitlement to anticipatory bail) in the affirmative.

The order directed the CCB Police to release the petitioner/accused No. 7 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.479/2023. This release is subject to the execution of a personal bond for ₹50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties for the like sum, along with several stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and the judicial process:

1. Cooperation with Investigation: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of the order, making himself available as and when required.
2. Address Proof: Furnishing of address proof for himself and his sureties at the time of furnishing the bonds.
3. Mandatory Attendance: The petitioner is required to mark his attendance at the respondent police station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., either until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
4. No Tampering with Evidence/Witnesses: He is strictly prohibited from making any direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing information to the Investigation Officer or the trial court.
5. Restriction on Travel: The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without the prior permission of the trial court.
6. No Criminal Activities: He shall not involve himself in any other criminal activities.
7. Intimation of Change of Address: Any change in residential address for both the petitioner and his sureties must be immediately intimated to the trial court.

The Court explicitly warned that violation of any of these conditions would entitle the cancellation of the bail. The Criminal Miscellaneous proceedings were consequently disposed of with this order.