In a significant order passed by the LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Mr. Annaiah A.B., who was named as Accused No. 3 in a case involving alleged cheating and criminal intimidation, has been granted anticipatory bail. The order, dated August 26, 2023, pertains to Crl. Misc. No. 8050/2023, which sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court based its decision primarily on the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint and the nature of the offences, which are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The petitioner, Annaiah A.B., aged about 42 years and a resident of Laggere, Bengaluru, was represented by M/s. K.P.J. Associates, Adv. The respondent was the State of Karnataka, represented by the Rajagopalanagara Police Station, Bengaluru. The case against the petitioner and others was registered under Cr. No. 295/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (Criminal intimidation), read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the complaint filed by Sri. Karthikeyan, a whole-sale clothes dealer, centered on a business transaction. The complainant alleged that through a mediator named Jafar, he purchased baninan beads worth Rs. 6,80,000/- and paid the amount via GooglePay and RTGS. After the materials were loaded onto a lorry, Accused No. 1 allegedly demanded an additional Rs. 3 lakhs for the remaining materials, which the complainant refused to pay. Following this refusal, Accused No. 1 allegedly got the purchased materials unloaded from the lorry and promised to repay the initial amount of Rs. 6,80,000/-. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 repaid Rs. 3 lakhs but failed to return the remaining amount of Rs. 3,80,000/-. When the complainant questioned the accused about the balance, he was allegedly abused in filthy language and threatened, leading to the registration of the complaint for cheating and criminal intimidation.

The petitioner, Annaiah A.B. (Accused No. 3), strongly contended his innocence, arguing that he had not committed any offence and that he was falsely implicated. A key point raised in his defense was the delay of 8 months in lodging the complaint. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted his involvement in the ongoing election for the post of Director of the Nagapura Credit Co-operative Society Limited, suggesting that the case was a result of political rivalry and that he had no involvement in the financial transaction between Accused No. 1 and the complainant. He submitted that if arrested, his political future would be severely jeopardized. He also noted that the investigation was nearing completion and that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and not punishable by death or life imprisonment, thereby justifying the grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea vehemently, reiterating the seriousness of the complainant’s allegations and arguing that there was a prima facie case against the accused. The prosecution expressed the usual apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond, urging the court to reject the application.

After considering the arguments and the material on record, the presiding Judge, Sri. SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE, proceeded to determine whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds for the special power of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

In its detailed reasoning, the Court made a critical observation: “The transaction is between the accused No.1 and the complainant. In the complaint there is no specific allegations against this petitioner.” This lack of direct and specific criminal culpability in the complaint was a decisive factor in the Court’s assessment. The Court also concurred with the petitioner’s submission regarding the nature of the offences, noting that they were non-bailable but not punishable with the ultimate sentence.

Acknowledging that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the mentioned address and has no criminal antecedents, the Court concluded that reasonable conditions would suffice to address the prosecution’s concerns about tampering and absconding. The Court ultimately held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought.

The petition was allowed, and in the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 295/2023, the petitioner, Annaiah A.B. (Accused No. 3), is to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) with one surety for the like sum.

The order was made subject to the following specific conditions to ensure the smooth conduct of the investigation and trial:

1. Appearance Before I.O.: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of the order.
2. No Tampering: He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. Co-operation: He shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
4. No Criminal Activities: He shall not involve in any criminal activities.
5. Regular Attendance: He shall attend the court, regularly, on all the dates of hearing, without fail.

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in utilizing the power of arrest, especially when the involvement of an accused is not clearly delineated in the initial complaint and the offences do not carry the highest penalties. The decision serves as a reminder that the personal liberty of an individual, even one facing serious charges, must be protected, provided stringent conditions are put in place to ensure cooperation with the law enforcement and judicial process.