A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted pre-arrest bail to three former employees of a service apartment who were accused of misappropriating funds, stealing kitchen articles, and removing a critical data hard disk. The order, delivered by Sri Hareesha A., the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, highlights an ongoing labor dispute regarding salary reductions that may have prompted the criminal complaint.

The petitioners, identified as Sri S. Venkatesh (46), the former Manager, along with assistants Sri Praveen K.S. (30) and Sri Hari Satheesan (24), approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking protection from arrest. They were named as the primary accused in Crime No. 109/2024 registered by the Jayanagar Police Station.

The Charges: Theft and Criminal Breach of Trust

The legal proceedings were initiated by the General Manager of AMC Comfort Service Apartment. The complaint alleged that S. Venkatesh and his assistants utilized their positions of trust to misappropriate booking amounts collected from guests. Furthermore, the management claimed that the trio committed theft by stealing a hard disk containing the hotel’s entire operational data and pilfering kitchen articles valued at approximately Rs. 2 lakhs.

The Jayanagar Police had registered the FIR under several stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 408 (Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and Section 381 (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

Defense Argues Retaliatory Litigation Over Salary Dispute

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar, presented evidence suggesting the criminal case was a retaliatory measure by the hotel management. The defense produced a resignation email dated March 13, 2024, sent by the petitioners prior to the filing of the police complaint on March 20, 2024.

A critical point of the defense’s argument centered on bank account statements showing a significant reduction in the first petitioner’s salary. Records indicated that S. Venkatesh was initially drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 39,800, which was abruptly reduced to Rs. 29,000 in March. The defense contended that the petitioners resigned due to this disappointment, and the hotel management responded by fabricating charges of theft and data deletion.

Judicial Observations on Evidence and Procedure

Judge Hareesha A. noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. The court observed that if the petitioners had indeed stolen the hard disk containing the hotel’s data and CCTV footage as alleged, it would be highly improbable for the complainant to have accessed and reviewed the CCTV footage to identify the accused, as stated in the complaint.

“It appears that there is a dispute between the Management and the petitioners, which may be the reason for filing the present complaint,” the Judge remarked in the order. The court further noted that while the offenses are non-bailable, they are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Conditions of the Bail Order

In granting the anticipatory bail, the court determined that the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their imminent arrest was well-founded. To balance the interests of the investigation, the court imposed a set of strict conditions:

The petitioners must execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety of a like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They are mandated to appear before the police and the trial court whenever summoned for investigation or trial purposes. Additionally, the court strictly prohibited the accused from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly, and ordered full cooperation with the Jayanagar Police to complete the investigation.

The court concluded that these stringent measures would sufficiently mitigate any potential flight risk while protecting the petitioners from unnecessary custodial interrogation during what appears to be a civil and professional dispute.