In a significant legal development involving a high-stakes financial scandal, a Bengaluru sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to three business owners accused of involvement in a multi-crore fraud at the D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminals Ltd (DDUTTL). The court of the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, presided over by Sri Yashawanth Kumar, provided relief to the petitioners despite strong opposition from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which is currently probing the misappropriation of approximately Rs 47.10 crore in public funds.
The petitioners, Naveen Kumar B. (42), M.S. Nandish (44), and Gayathridevi (51), sought protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 243/2023. The case involves serious charges including criminal breach of trust by a public servant, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using forged documents as genuine, all under the umbrella of a criminal conspiracy.
Origins of the Multi-Crore Scam
The legal battle stems from a complaint lodged on September 23, 2023, by C.N. Shiva Prakash, the Managing Director of DDUTTL, a Government of Karnataka undertaking. Upon taking charge of the company in late 2022, Shiva Prakash discovered widespread administrative irregularities and financial commissions that had led to a massive monetary drain on the state exchequer.
The investigation, which began at the Wilson Garden Police Station before being handed over to the CID due to its complexity and scale, alleges that private contractors and firms conspired with officials to siphon off funds through a sophisticated billing scam. The Karnataka Lokayukta is simultaneously conducting an inquiry into the matter, highlighting the gravity of the institutional failure.
Allegations of Fake Bills and Unfinished Work
The prosecution, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, presented a grim picture of the alleged activities of the petitioners. According to the CID, the investigative agency has already seized 782 files related to illegal work orders. The core of the accusation is that the petitioners, through their respective firms—Venisha Enterprises, S.S. Enterprises, and Mayur Advertising—submitted fake bills to DDUTTL.
The prosecution argued that these individuals received substantial payments for work that was either never completed or never started. They further alleged that false completion certificates and forged documents were utilized to release government funds. During the hearing, the CID claimed that the petitioners were not cooperating with the investigation, with some allegedly absconding or failing to respond to notices issued under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
The Defense Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. Keshava Murthy, maintained that his clients were innocent victims of a political and administrative rift between the Chairman and the Managing Director of the company. The defense argued that the equipment was supplied and the work was carried out to the satisfaction of the company. They pointed toward a significant delay in filing the complaint—nearly two years after the alleged incidents—suggesting the charges were a result of internal departmental friction rather than actual criminal conduct.
The defense emphasized that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru with deep roots in the community and have no intention of fleeing from justice. They asserted that the reputation of these business owners would be irreparably damaged if they were subjected to custodial interrogation for a case that is primarily based on documentary evidence.
Judicial Reasoning and Bail Conditions
While acknowledging the seriousness of the Rs 47 crore misappropriation, Judge Yashawanth Kumar noted that the petitioners’ names were not originally mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR). The court observed that while the presence of the petitioners is undoubtedly necessary for the investigation, their custodial interrogation did not appear to be an absolute necessity at this stage, as the case largely relies on 782 seized files and other documentary trails.
The court highlighted that the offences, though serious, are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate. Consequently, the court decided that the interests of justice would be served by granting anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions that ensure the petitioners’ cooperation with the CID.
Terms of the Court Order
The court ordered that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of a like sum.
- The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 15 days of the order.
- They are mandated to cooperate fully with the CID investigation and appear whenever summoned.
- They are strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or hampering the ongoing probe.
- The petitioners cannot leave the country without prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate.
- Valid photo identity cards and proof of residence must be submitted to the investigating agency.
The granting of this bail ensures that the investigation into one of Karnataka’s major recent administrative scandals continues while maintaining the legal threshold for personal liberty during the pre-trial phase.