Bengaluru, April 18, 2023 – In a significant development, the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.63), has granted anticipatory bail to Mr. Balaji Venugopal Bhat, aged 59, in connection with a 2015 cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The order, passed on April 18, 2023, by Sri. A. Earanna, allows Mr. Bhat to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by the Ashok Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 699/2015.
The case, Crl.Misc.No.551/2023, was filed by Mr. Bhat under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking protection from imminent arrest. The charges against him stem from a complaint lodged by the second respondent, Smt. Sunitha Narendra Pujari, W/o. Narendra Pujari, for alleged offenses under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Allegations
The core of the dispute revolves around a franchise business agreement executed in 2011. The complainant, Smt. Sunitha Narendra Pujari, who runs a ladies readymade shop in Solapur, contended that she entered into an agreement with Mr. Bhat, along with two other individuals—Mr. Raju Mohandas Matane and Smt. Pooja Raju Matane. She claimed to have invested an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was intended as a refundable deposit. She further deposited an initial amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as confirmation of the agreement.
As per the complainant’s submission, the agreement stipulated she would receive Rs. 1,00,000/- per month along with an 8% commission on the sale of materials. However, she alleged that the petitioner and the other directors of the company colluded and failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement. This breach of contract, according to Smt. Pujari, resulted in a significant financial loss amounting to Rs. 53.70 lakhs.
The matter was initially brought before the IV ACMM Court, Bengaluru, through a private complaint (PCR No. 10638/2015). The court referred the matter for investigation, after which the Ashok Nagar Police filed a ‘B’ Final Report, suggesting insufficient evidence to proceed. Dissatisfied, the complainant examined herself before the IV ACMM Court, which subsequently rejected the ‘B’ Report and registered the case in Cr. No. 0699/2015.
Arguments and Judicial Consideration
Mr. Balaji Venugopal Bhat, represented by Sri. Anand Muttalli, Advocate, argued in his bail petition that he was innocent, that the case was false, and that the respondent police were making hectic efforts to arrest him, which would tarnish his reputation in the society. He emphasized his deep roots in society and his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
The learned Public Prosecutor initially filed an objection, raising concerns that granting bail could lead to the petitioner threatening witnesses, committing similar offenses, or fleeing from justice, as the case was under investigation. However, during the final hearing, the Public Prosecutor stated she had no objections to the bail petition and did not submit further arguments.
The respondent No. 2, Smt. Sunitha Pujari, represented by Smt. Geetha J. Kadur, Advocate, strongly opposed the bail application. Her objections highlighted the severity of the loss incurred (Rs. 53.70 lakhs) and reiterated the fear that the petitioner might escape trial or tamper with documents and prosecution witnesses if released. Despite sufficient opportunity, the counsel for respondent No. 2 did not submit final arguments, which the court took as ‘no arguments’ for the respondent.
In its detailed analysis, the Court observed that the records primarily indicate a civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioner. The entire nature of the controversy—breach of a retail readymade garments contract and the resulting financial loss—appeared to be essentially civil. The Court further noted that the alleged offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and are triable by a Court of Magistrate, which weighs in favor of granting anticipatory bail.
Crucially, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s prior attempt to secure bail before the IV ACMM Court, which had rejected his application for exemption under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). Considering the efforts made by the petitioner to seek legal remedy, the court found the apprehension of arrest to be genuine and well-founded.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
Concluding that the petitioner had made out a strong enough case, the Court allowed the petition. Mr. Balaji Venugopal Bhat has been directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum.
The anticipatory bail is subject to the following stringent conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 30 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation.
- The petitioner is required to mark his attendance once every 30 days, preferably on the 2nd Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM, before the Jurisdictional Police until the final report is filed.
- The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- He must furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
- The petitioner is barred from indulging in similar types of offenses in the future.
- He must appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
- Non-compliance with any of these conditions will automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail order.
This ruling provides immediate relief to Mr. Bhat, preventing his custodial interrogation, while simultaneously imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation with the ongoing investigation and trial proceedings. The case will now proceed for trial on merits before the concerned court.