Bengaluru, April 5, 2024 – The LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Dr. M. Shivakumar in a criminal case involving allegations of theft, cheating, and forgery, which the petitioner claims was filed as a counter-blast to a cheque bounce case he initiated.
The order, delivered by Smt. Kalpana M.S., allowed the petition filed by Dr. M. Shivakumar, aged 48, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner sought protection from arrest in C.C. No. 6846/2024, arising out of Cr. No. 37/2022 registered at Basavanagudi Police Station. The charges involve offences punishable under Sections 380 (Theft), 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Cross-Complaints
The case highlights a dispute that began in the realm of financial transactions and quickly escalated into cross-litigation involving both civil and criminal complaints.
The Petitioner’s Claim (NI Act Case):
The petitioner, Dr. M. Shivakumar, maintains that the entire criminal complaint against him is false and fabricated. He asserted before the court that the complainant, H.N. Sreedevi, had issued a cheque bearing No. 589694 for an amount of $\text{Rs. } 98,000/$, dated November 6, 2020. Upon presentation, this cheque was dishonored. Following the necessary legal steps, the petitioner filed a cheque bounce case against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The Complainant’s Claim (Criminal Case):
The criminal case against Dr. M. Shivakumar originated from a private complaint filed by H.N. Sreedevi (the drawer of the dishonored cheque) in PCR No. 3748/2022 before the 37th ACMM, Bengaluru. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the Basavanagudi Police, which registered Cr. No. 37/2022 and subsequently filed a charge sheet.
The prosecution’s core allegation is that Dr. M. Shivakumar stole several important documents belonging to the complainant, including:
- A blank cheque (presumably the one used in the NI Act case).
- A demand note and a consideration receipt given to others.
- A sale deed standing in the name of the complainant’s husband.
The prosecution alleges the petitioner used these stolen documents to commit the offences of cheating and forgery for wrongful gain, including filing the false complaint under the NI Act.
Arguments for Anticipatory Bail
The counsel for Dr. M. Shivakumar vehemently argued that the criminal complaint was nothing more than a “counter blast” filed by the complainant immediately after the petitioner initiated the cheque bounce case. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated, and the police investigation was improper.
Furthermore, the counsel emphasized that the alleged offences are non-bailable but are neither punishable with death penalty nor life imprisonment, and are triable by a Magistrate, thus lowering the bar for granting bail. The petitioner guaranteed that he would abide by all terms and conditions, cooperate with the investigation, and would not tamper with prosecution witnesses. The court was requested to grant bail to prevent his defense from being put into jeopardy due to an unjustifiable pre-trial arrest.
Prosecution’s Objection
The Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the offences committed were heinous and that the trial had not yet commenced. The Prosecutor expressed concern that if released on bail, the petitioner might tamper with or terrorize prime witnesses, abscond, and potentially involve himself in similar criminal activities.
Court’s Rationale and Reliance on Precedent
The court first addressed the general principles of bail, citing the Supreme Court’s dictum in State of Rajasthan vs. Balachandh @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447), affirming the legal doctrine that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” The judge stressed that this doctrine is paramount in safeguarding the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the well-established principle that custodial interrogation is often unwarranted in cases primarily based on documentary evidence. The judge relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1570), which held:
“When case was primarily based on documentary evidence, arrest of accused persons was not warranted… Anticipatory bail granted.”
The court found this ratio squarely applicable, noting that the entire case against Dr. M. Shivakumar revolves around the alleged theft and misuse of documents—cheques and a sale deed—which are documentary in nature. The court concluded that pre-trial detention was not warranted, especially since there was no report of prior criminal antecedents.
“Whether the present case is counter blast to the cheque bounce case or not, is a matter of trial,” the court observed, recognizing the interconnected and defensive nature of the criminal complaint. Given that the petitioner has a permanent place of abode in Bengaluru, the court assessed the chances of him fleeing from justice as “remote.” The court ultimately ruled that imposing stringent conditions would adequately address the prosecution’s concerns and secure the accused’s presence during the trial.
Conditions for Release
In striking a balance between individual liberty and a free and fair trial, the court allowed the anticipatory bail petition. Dr. M. Shivakumar is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by the police in the said case, upon executing a personal bond for $\text{Rs. } 50,000/$ (Fifty Thousand Rupees) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following key conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of the order, and make himself available for investigation as and when called.
- He must furnish documents regarding his address proof and the address proof of his sureties.
- He shall mark his attendance at the Basavanagudi Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
- He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without the prior permission of the trial court.
- He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
- Any change in the residential address must be immediately intimated to the trial court by both the petitioner and his sureties.
The court explicitly warned that the violation of any of these conditions would entitle the cancellation of the bail.