BENGALURU – A Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to a mother and daughter duo, Nandini H.P. and Preethi J.E., who were accused of cheating a neighbor of nearly Rs 3 lakh and a valuable gold chain. The order, delivered by Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R., comes amid allegations of financial fraud, criminal intimidation, and the misuse of neighborly trust.

The petitioners, 49-year-old Nandini H.P. and her 27-year-old daughter Preethi J.E., residents of Mandya, were facing arrest by the Kamakshipalya Police. The case, registered under Crime No. 118/2024, includes charges under Sections 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Anatomy of the Alleged Fraud

The complainant, a resident of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru, alleged that her ordeal began in 2018 when Nandini H.P. moved into a rented house directly across from hers. Over time, the two families developed a close bond. Nandini reportedly gained the complainant’s sympathy by sharing stories of her family’s hardships, specifically mentioning that her daughter Preethi was studying Architecture while her second child was mentally retarded and required expensive medical treatment.

By gaining the complainant’s trust, the petitioners allegedly sought financial assistance to cover Preethi’s educational expenses. Between September 4 and September 19, 2018, the complainant transferred a total of Rs 2,92,000 through digital payment platforms like Google Pay and PhonePe from her accounts at Canara Bank and State Bank of India.

The allegations grew more serious regarding an incident on November 3, 2018. The petitioners allegedly visited the complainant and requested her gold chain, weighing 51.710 grams, claiming they needed it for a family function. The chain was never returned. The complainant later discovered that the gold had been pledged at a private finance firm in the name of a third party for Rs 1,10,000. When the complainant confronted the duo at their new residence, she was allegedly met with verbal abuse and death threats.

Arguments and Defense Claims

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the mother and daughter were innocent of the alleged crimes. In a significant disclosure, the defense claimed that the petitioners had already repaid a substantial portion of the money. They stated that Rs 1,75,000 was transferred via PhonePe to the complainant on March 23, 2024, and another Rs 1,00,000 had been paid in cash, totaling a repayment of Rs 2,75,000.

The defense further argued that the offenses alleged do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment and that the petitioners were fully committed to cooperating with the police investigation.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, characterizing the offense as grievous. The prosecution argued that the amount involved was significant and that the petitioners had strategically gained the trust of a neighbor only to defraud her. There were concerns that if granted bail, the petitioners might abscond, threaten the complainant, or destroy evidence while the investigation was still in its infancy.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R., after reviewing the case files and hearing the arguments, noted that the relationship between the parties was essentially one of long-standing acquaintance. The court observed that the primary allegations centered on a financial dispute and the pledging of ornaments, offenses that are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract the most severe punishments under the law.

The court held that while the investigation is ongoing, the liberty of the individuals should be protected, provided they adhere to strict conditions. The judge noted that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the accused fleeing or tampering with witnesses could be mitigated through judicial safeguards rather than incarceration.

Conditions for Release

The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing the Kamakshipalya Police to release Nandini H.P. and Preethi J.E. in the event of their arrest, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners must execute a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 each with one surety for the same amount.
2. They are required to appear before the court on all hearing dates and cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer whenever called upon.
3. They are strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or threatening, inducing, or alluring prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. They must not involve themselves in any other criminal activities.
5. They are required to produce permanent address proof to the satisfaction of the court.

This ruling emphasizes the court’s effort to balance the protection of a complainant’s interests with the fundamental right to liberty, especially in cases where a significant portion of the disputed amount is claimed to have been settled.