BENGALURU – In a significant legal development involving cross-border travel and criminal proceedings, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has allowed a modification of bail conditions for Nishu Murthy, an accused in a high-profile fraud and forgery case. The court’s decision marks a critical balance between the rights of an individual to maintain their residency status abroad and the requirements of a state investigation.

The petitioner, Ms. Nishu Murthy, who is arraigned as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 262/2021 by the Jnanabharathi Police, had approached the court seeking a relaxation of the travel restrictions originally imposed when she was granted anticipatory bail. The case involves serious allegations under the Indian Penal Code, including Section 405 for criminal breach of trust, Section 420 for cheating, and Section 468 for forgery for the purpose of cheating, all read with Section 34.

Background of the Legal Dispute

The criminal case originated from a property dispute involving the petitioner’s late father, Sri Krishnamurthy. The prosecution alleges that the accused individuals engaged in fraudulent transactions and the falsification of documents. Nishu Murthy, however, has consistently maintained her innocence, asserting that the transactions in question were handled entirely by her father and that she has no direct relationship with the complainant or the specific details of the property dealings.

Earlier in 2022, the court had granted her anticipatory bail but included a specific condition—Condition No. 5—which restricted her movement and required her to remain within the jurisdiction to assist with the investigation.

The Plea for Modification

Represented by her advocate, Sri Pramod K.B., Nishu Murthy filed a petition for the modification of this condition. The defense highlighted several compelling personal and administrative reasons for the request. The court was informed of the recent passing of the petitioner’s father due to cancer, which has left her in a vulnerable position. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that her two daughters are settled abroad—one in the United Kingdom and the other in Australia—and that she cannot reside alone at her Bengaluru address.

A crucial point of urgency was the petitioner’s Australian Resident Return (RR) Visa. The defense informed the court that her visa was set to expire on April 4, 2023. If she were not allowed to travel and re-enter Australia before that date, she would face significant immigration hurdles and the potential loss of her residency status. The petitioner provided her overseas address in Blacktown, New South Wales, and committed to remaining available via email and contact numbers for the Investigating Officer.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor filed a strong objection to the modification request. The prosecution contended that the accused had not fully complied with the initial bail conditions and argued that allowing an accused in a fraud case to leave the country could hamper the investigation. There were concerns that the petitioner might not return to face trial, thereby delaying the judicial process.

The Court’s Ruling and New Safeguards

Judge Rajesh Karnam K., after evaluating the arguments from both sides and reviewing the materials on record, decided in favor of the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds, particularly regarding her visa expiration and family circumstances, to justify the relaxation of the travel ban.

In the order dated January 24, 2023, the court modified Condition No. 5 but replaced it with a set of stringent new requirements to ensure the petitioner remains within the reach of the law.

The modified conditions include:

1. Mandatory Appearance: Before leaving the jurisdiction, Nishu Murthy must appear before the Investigating Officer (IO). The court directed the IO to conclude the investigation specifically regarding this petitioner before her departure.
2. Address Verification: The petitioner is required to furnish valid proof of her intended residence in Australia to the police.
3. Consular Oversight: The petitioner must furnish her particulars to the Indian Embassy in Australia from the date of the order.
4. Future Cooperation: She is mandated to return to Bengaluru and appear before the court regularly after her stay. She must also appear before the IO when called for, subject to prevailing travel conditions.
5. Trial Participation: The court ruled that the petitioner must file proper applications before the trial court if she seeks exemption from personal appearance during the actual trial phase, which the trial court will consider based on the nature of the proceedings.

The court emphasized that while individual liberty and family obligations are important, they must be balanced with the sanctity of the investigation. By requiring the IO to wrap up the petitioner’s portion of the investigation before she boards her flight, the court aimed to prevent any further delays in the filing of the final report.

This order serves as a precedent for how courts handle “resident alien” accused individuals, ensuring that legal proceedings in India do not inadvertently cause the forfeiture of an individual’s legal status in another country, provided they remain cooperative with the justice system.