BENGALURU, INDIA – In a matter concerning alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust related to international share market investments, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Charit Kumar N @ Charith. The order, passed on September 23, 2023, under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8345/2023, allows the 39-year-old Bengaluru resident to be released on bail should he face arrest in connection with Cr. No. 95/2023 registered by the Upparpet Police Station.

The case involves serious allegations under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background: Advocates Allege Rs. 45 Lakh Fraud

The criminal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by advocate Sri. B.N. Anjan Kumar, who along with a colleague, Vasundar Pandit. A, alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused (Accused No. 1) induced them to invest a substantial sum in the international share market with the promise of high profits.

According to the complaint, believing the accused’s representations, the two practising advocates transferred an amount of Rs. 28 lakhs to the account of Accused No. 1 and also handed over an additional Rs. 17 lakhs in cash to the accused persons. The total alleged defrauded amount thus stands at Rs. 45 lakhs.

The complainant later discovered that the money was not invested as promised but was allegedly used by the accused for their personal benefit. When the complainant demanded the return of the amount, the accused allegedly switched off their mobiles and later resorted to threats of dire consequences.

Petitioner’s Defence and Plea for Parity

The petitioner, Charit Kumar N, S/o Late Suvarna N.D., represented by advocate Sri. Sudhanva.D.S, asserted his innocence. His defence primarily revolved around the following grounds:

1. Civil Nature of Dispute: The petitioner contended that the entire matter was purely civil in nature and the criminal complaint was filed by the complainant, who is an advocate and well-versed with legal provisions, solely to exert pressure for a forced settlement.
2. Lack of Specific Allegation: The petitioner claimed there was “no specific allegation” against him, with the more serious allegations being levelled against Accused No. 1.
3. Ground of Parity: Crucially, the petitioner informed the court that Accused No. 1 had already been arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail by the learned IV ACMM, Bengaluru. The petitioner, therefore, sought bail on the principle of parity, arguing he was standing on the same footing as his co-accused.
4. Permanent Residence and Family Ties: The petitioner, who is married with children and owns movable properties, affirmed his status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru, ensuring his availability for trial. He also confirmed his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Court’s Analysis and Granting of Bail

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was actively involved in cheating, required interrogation, and that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) still needed to recover the defrauded amount. The prosecution feared the petitioner might abscond or tamper with evidence if released.

Justice Sabappa, the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns but ultimately favoured granting bail. The court noted that Accused No. 1 had already been arrested and interrogated, and the petitioner was standing on the “same footing,” thereby strengthening the argument for parity.

The judge also made a pertinent observation regarding the complainant, an advocate:

“Moreover, the complainant being Advocate and well educated and he has follow up the day to day share market value. It is pertinent to note that at the time of investing money in the share market it is the duty of the complainant to take proper instructions from the competent person. There is no such efforts made by the complainant. Thereby, at this stage, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him on bail…”

The court reiterated the principle that a balance must be struck to prevent “harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention” while ensuring a “free, fair and full investigation.” Concluding that the petitioner’s family would face humiliation otherwise, the court ruled in the affirmative for the grant of anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions.

Strict Conditions for Conditional Release

The court allowed the bail petition and ordered Charit Kumar N to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum.

The release is subject to the following seven key conditions:

1. Cooperation with I.O.: The petitioner must appear before the I.O. within 15 days from the date of the order and cooperate fully with the investigation.
2. No Witness Tampering: The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
3. Court Appearance: He shall co-operate for investigation and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. Non-Abscondence: He shall not abscond from his ordinary residence and must furnish his address proof to the concerned police.
5. No Further Offence: He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. Jurisdiction Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. Monthly Attendance: He shall mark his attendance in the Upparpet Police Station between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM once in a month, specifically on the 2nd Sunday, until the filing of the final report.

The court explicitly warned that any violation of these conditions would grant the Investigating Officer the liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail.