In a notable judicial order delivered on January 5, 2023, the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), Sri S. Nataraj, B.A.L., LL.B., allowed two clubbed regular bail petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12650/2022 (clubbed with Crl.Misc.No. 12629/2022). The court granted regular bail to eight accused persons (Accused Nos. 2 to 9) in connection with Crime No. 37/2022 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. The accused were facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

Factual Background and Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion based on a complaint lodged on November 30, 2022, by one Shrenik Jain M. According to the complainant, he was seeking to join a private company that required a degree qualification. While searching online for options to complete a degree, he came across an advertisement for “Sri Venkateshwara Institute” on its website (WWW.VSSINSTITUTE.IN), which advertised that individuals seeking degree certificates and marks cards for courses like B.A., B.Sc., B.B.M., and B.Com. could contact them.

The sequence of events outlined in the complaint unfolded as follows:

• On November 2, 2022, the complainant visited the institute’s office, where a receptionist identified as Shilpa (Accused No. 4) informed him that obtaining a B.Com. degree marks card and certificate from a reputed university would cost Rs. 1,00,000. She collected an advance sum of Rs. 20,000 and issued an official receipt.
• On November 3, 2022, the complainant was called back to the office and paid an additional Rs. 10,000 against a receipt. Later, on November 22, 2022, he transferred another Rs. 10,000 via PhonePe to Venkateshwara Institute’s account, along with Rs. 3,00,000 paid directly to Shilpa toward service charges.
• When the complainant inquired over the phone about the schedule for writing examinations, Shilpa informed him that writing examinations was unnecessary, as the institute would directly arrange the marks cards and degree certificates.
• On November 26, 2022, Shilpa sent the 1st and 2nd year B.Com. marks cards (dated for the academic years 2011–2012) without the complainant ever sitting for an examination, demanding the remaining balance fee before releasing the final-year marks card.

Realizing that the institute was operating an organized racket issuing forged educational documents of various reputed universities by collecting money from students, the complainant approached the Cyber Crime Police Station, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 37/2022.

Overview of the Accused Applicants

The two clubbed petitions involved eight individuals arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 through 9:

Petitioners in Crl.Misc.No. 12650/2022:

1. Srikanth Mandava (Accused No. 8): Aged 40 years, son of Mandava Sreemannarayana Rao, resident of Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Duddugunta Srinivas Reddy (Accused No. 9): Aged 39 years, son of Duddugunta Krishna Rao, resident of Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

Petitioners in Crl.Misc.No. 12629/2022:

1. M. Sesha Reddy (Accused No. 2): Aged 23 years, son of Venkateshwara Reddy, resident of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
2. Kishore (Accused No. 3): Aged 37 years, son of Hanumachari, resident of Kurubara Halli, JC Nagar, Bengaluru.
3. Shilpa (Accused No. 4): Aged 41 years, wife of Narasimha, resident of Vignananagara, Bengaluru.
4. Sharada M. (Accused No. 5): Aged 39 years, wife of Narayanaswamy, resident of Mahadevapura, Bengaluru.
5. R. Rajanna (Accused No. 6): Aged 48 years, son of Rangappa, resident of Vrushabhavathi Nagar, Bengaluru.
6. Suresh Babu (Accused No. 7): Aged 30 years, son of Lakshmaiah, resident of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.

Arguments Submitted by Defense Counsel

Learned advocates Sri Shivakumar (representing Accused Nos. 8 and 9) and Sri M. Mayur (representing Accused Nos. 2 to 7) presented the following key arguments seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Employee Status: Defense counsel argued that Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were mere salaried employees of Venkateshwara Institute carrying out routine instructions from the management.
• Completion of Custodial Interrogation and Recovery: The accused were arrested between December 6 and December 8, 2022, and were remanded to police custody for 12 days. Extensive searches and panchanamas had already been completed, during which 1,285 fake marks cards, 2 CPUs, 5 hard disks, 10 mobile phones, 76 university seals, signature seals, and institute stamps were recovered.
• Frivolous Implication of Accused 8 and 9: It was submitted that nothing was recovered during the raid conducted at the premises of Accused No. 8, their names were absent from the FIR, and no prima facie case existed against them.
• Special Consideration for Female Accused: Accused Nos. 4 and 5 (Shilpa and Sharada M.) are married women with young children.
• Parity with Accused No. 1: It was highlighted that Accused No. 1 had already been granted pre-arrest bail protection by the court.
• Nature of Offences: None of the alleged offences carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and all prescribed punishments are below 7 years of imprisonment.

To support their contentions, counsel relied on landmark Supreme Court rulings:

1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]: Emphasizing guidelines restricting unnecessary arrests and mandating judicial scrutiny for offences carrying imprisonment under 7 years.
2. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51]: Reaffirming strict compliance with bail procedures and timely disposal of bail applications.
3. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]: Highlighting that the primary objective of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial rather than serving a punitive or preventive purpose prior to conviction.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed both bail applications, submitting detailed objections accompanied by the Investigating Officer’s status report:

• Magnitude of the Scam: The prosecution submitted that the accused established an organized entity operating under WWW.VSSINSTITUTE.IN to issue fraudulent degree certificates and marks cards of various universities across the state without requiring candidates to write examinations.
• Gravity of Offences: The prosecution argued that the offences involved large-scale public cheating, forgery, and cyber fraud, posing a grave threat to the integrity of the educational system.
• Risk of Absconding and Evidence Tampering: It was contended that if enlarged on bail, the accused persons were likely to abscond, destroy electronic evidence, or interfere with ongoing investigations.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the complaint, police custody records, seizure panchanamas, and rival arguments to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

1. Extent of Seizure and Investigation Progress

Judge S. Nataraj noted that following the arrest of the accused, the police obtained 12 days of custodial custody, during which extensive raids and searches were conducted. The investigating team seized 1,285 fake marks cards, 76 university seals, signature stamps, CPUs, hard disks, and mobile phones, and drew detailed spot panchanamas recording the printing locations. Furthermore, a raid conducted at the premises of Accused No. 8 yielded no incriminating items. The court observed that with major recoveries completed, further pre-trial detention was unnecessary for investigation.

2. Statutory Penalties and Pre-Trial Detention Considerations

The court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act carry maximum punishments of less than 7 years of imprisonment and are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Applying the principles in Satender Kumar Antil and Sanjay Chandra, the court affirmed that pre-trial detention cannot be used as a form of premature punishment.

3. Role of Employees and Gender Considerations

The court observed that Accused Nos. 2 to 7 appeared to be salaried workers following institutional management directives. The court also took note of the statutory considerations applicable to female accused persons (Accused Nos. 4 and 5) under the proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C.

The court emphasized that whether the accused conspired to create fake educational records and cheat the public is a matter to be adjudicated during full-fledged trial. Granting bail at this interlocutory stage is a procedural mechanism to secure the presence of the accused and does not constitute a final determination of guilt or innocence.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri S. Nataraj allowed both petitions and passed the following order:

The petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No. 12650/2022 clubbed with Crl.Misc.No. 12629/2022 are allowed.

Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 9 (M. Sesha Reddy, Kishore, Shilpa, Sharada M., R. Rajanna, Suresh Babu, Srikanth Mandava, and Duddugunta Srinivas Reddy) are ordered to be released on regular bail in Crime No. 37/2022 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the committal court, subject to the following conditions:

1. Jurisdictional Restriction: The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 9 shall not leave Bengaluru City without prior permission of the I ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Police Attendance: The petitioners/accused Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall mark their attendance before the respondent police once every 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM, until the filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Investigation Cooperation: The petitioners/accused shall fully cooperate with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case.
4. Non-Recidivism: The petitioners/accused shall not repeat similar offences.
5. Non-Interference: The petitioners/accused shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses, nor tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner, directly or indirectly.
6. Regular Court Appearance: The petitioners/accused shall regularly appear before the concerned court without absconding.