Bengaluru, India — The LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-60) in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Chetaram and Vajaram, in a high-value financial cheating case. The order, pronounced on August 30, 2023, by Judge Ramakant I. Chavan, allows the petitioners to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 283/2023 registered at the Bellanduru Police Station.

The petitioners, Chetaram, S/o Haratinga Ram, aged 25, and Vajaram, S/o Bagdaram, aged 41, both residents of Rajasthan, were facing allegations under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of Valuable Security), and 471 (Using a Forged Document as Genuine), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The Core Allegations

The criminal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by one Yogesh. The complainant alleged that he knew the accused, who also belonged to Erode (Tamil Nadu), and they frequently dealt in finance. According to the complaint, on June 18, 2023, the accused approached Yogesh and requested a loan of ₹2.5 Crores, promising to return the sum within 30 days.

Trusting their word, the complainant claims to have lent a sum of ₹2,43,70,000/- (Rupees Two Crore, Forty-Three Lakh, and Seventy Thousand) in cash at the Hungry Vibes Hotel, stating the money was capital he had kept for his business. When the accused allegedly failed to repay the amount, they are said to have issued three Demand Drafts (DDs) as a guarantee. The non-repayment and the subsequent issuance of DDs led the complainant to allege cheating and forgery, setting the criminal law into motion.

Defense Arguments and Court Observations

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No. 8101/2023, seeking anticipatory bail. Their counsel, Sri. Gopal Singh, strongly refuted the allegations, asserting the petitioners’ innocence. The defense argued that:

• The allegations were false, and the petitioners never borrowed any money.
• The complainant, a businessman from Tamil Nadu who allegedly failed in his business, shifted his residence to Bengaluru.
• The allegation that the complainant lent such a “huge amount of money” is “highly unbelievable and completely a false allegation.”
• The petitioners claimed to know nothing about the Demand Drafts referred to in the complaint.
• The petitioners are businessmen who have never been booked for any crime in their lifetime, and their custodial interrogation was not required. Furthermore, they contended that their social and business standing would be permanently lost upon arrest.

The Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that prima facie materials existed to show the petitioners’ involvement and that the investigation was still at a primary stage. The prosecution expressed apprehension that granting bail could lead to the petitioners tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or absconding permanently.

The Court’s Ruling on Anticipatory Bail

After hearing both sides and perusing the FIR, complaint, and other relevant documents, the Court noted that while there were allegations of cheating, the matter was still under investigation. A key aspect considered was the nature of the offenses. The Court stated, “The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable before the learned Magistrate and they are not punishable either with death or life imprisonment.”

Critically, the judge observed that the prosecution’s apprehension of flight or tampering could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. The Court ultimately concluded that the petitioners had made out “reasonable or substantial grounds” for the grant of anticipatory bail.

“Looking in to the facts and circumstances of the case,” the judgment reads, “I am of the opinion that, Prima-facie the petitioners have made out grounds for granting anticipatory bail.” The Court, therefore, decided to exercise its power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Conditions for Release

The bail petition was allowed, and the Investigating Officer was directed to release both Chetaram and Vajaram on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr. No. 283/2023 of Bellanduru P.S., subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) along with a surety for the like sum.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
4. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the trial court.

The judgment provides temporary relief for the accused while ensuring their cooperation with the ongoing investigation and future court proceedings, thus balancing individual liberty with the demands of justice.