The 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 39-year-old Nagendra B, who was accused of defrauding a former colleague of Rs 10 lakh under the pretext of a liquor business investment. The court, presided over by Sri N. Krishnaiah, ruled that the dispute appeared to be centered around financial transactions and noted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary at this stage.

The petitioner, Nagendra B, a resident of Siddapura in Jayanagara, approached the court seeking protection from arrest in Crime No. 100/2022, registered at the Commercial Street Police Station. The case was initiated following a private complaint filed by one Basavaraju under section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging offenses punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations of Financial Betrayal

According to the prosecution and the original private complaint, the complainant, Basavaraju, and the petitioner, Nagendra, were coworkers at the Bowring Club in Bengaluru and shared a friendly relationship. The complainant alleged that Nagendra convinced him to invest in a liquor business, promising significant profits. Relying on these assurances, Basavaraju reportedly pledged his wife’s gold ornaments to raise Rs 10,00,000, which was then handed over to the petitioner.

The complainant further stated that instead of investing the money as promised, Nagendra utilized the funds for personal expenses. When Basavaraju demanded the repayment of the principal amount, the petitioner allegedly issued two cheques. However, upon presentation at the bank, both cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The situation escalated when the complainant confronted Nagendra about the failed payments, at which point the petitioner allegedly issued dire threats against the complainant’s life.

Defense Claims Misuse of Blank Cheque and Extortion

In his defense, Nagendra B, represented by Advocate T. Puttaswamy, strongly denied the allegations, characterizing the case as a false implication aimed at extracting money. The defense argued that Nagendra had indeed borrowed a small amount from the complainant back in 2018 for daily necessities, which was subsequently repaid in full.

The defense’s primary contention was that at the time of the original small loan, the complainant had taken a signed blank cheque as security. It was argued that despite the loan being settled years ago, the complainant failed to return the cheque and instead misused it to file a high-value criminal case. The petitioner maintained that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to lend Rs 10 lakh and that the entire narrative of a liquor business investment was fabricated to give a criminal color to a settled civil matter.

Judicial Observation on the Nature of the Case

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that the investigation was in its preliminary stages and that the petitioner might abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses if granted liberty.

However, after examining the records, the court noted that the matter originated from a private complaint referred to the police by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The judge observed that while the offenses were serious, they were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and were exclusively triable by a Magistrate’s court.

The judge further observed that Nagendra is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal antecedents. The court noted that there was no requirement for custodial interrogation as there were no weapons to be recovered and the primary evidence appeared to be documentary in nature. The judge remarked that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner fleeing from justice could be addressed by imposing strict conditions.

Grant of Bail and Strict Conditions

Concluding that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for the exercise of discretionary power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the court allowed the petition. Nagendra B was ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by the Commercial Street Police upon executing a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

To ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation, the court imposed several mandatory conditions:

1. The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with evidence directly or indirectly.
2. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation whenever summoned.
3. The petitioner is strictly prohibited from committing similar offenses in the future.
4. The petitioner must attend all court hearings regularly without fail.
5. The petitioner is mandated to appear before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru within 30 days of the order.

The ruling provides a significant reprieve for Nagendra B, shifting the focus of the multi-lakh dispute to the trial stage where the authenticity of the investment claims and the alleged misuse of cheques will be scrutinized.