Bengaluru, January 30, 2023: The LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.63), has granted anticipatory bail to Gnanashekar, one of the accused in a case involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust at a co-operative bank. The order, delivered by Judge Sri. A. Earanna, allows the petitioner, accused number nine, to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the crime.
The petition was filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 314/2022 registered by the Hanumanthanagar Police Station. The case involves serious charges under Sections 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Core Allegations of Financial Fraud
The complaint was lodged by the manager of a co-operative bank. The crux of the prosecution’s case is that a group of individuals, including bank employees and external parties, colluded to sanction unauthorized loans.
Specifically, the prosecution alleged that Accused Nos. 7 and 8 secured loans of Rs. 25,00,000/- each from the bank. This sanction was reportedly done without the knowledge or approval of the bank’s Board of Directors. The complaint suggested that Accused Nos. 2 to 6, along with a valuator (Accused No. 9), conspired to create false documents, including minutes of a Board meeting allegedly held on April 11, 2017, to legitimize the loan sanctions. The prosecution thus claimed that the bank was cheated through this conspiracy and criminal breach of trust.
Petitioner’s Limited Role in the Alleged Conspiracy
The petitioner, Gnanashekar, was named as Accused No. 9 in the case. He approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, arguing that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the conspiracy by the police based on a false complaint. His counsel emphasized that the petitioner is a respectable businessman with deep roots in society and was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
Crucially, the court, in its analysis, highlighted the specific allegations against Gnanashekar. While the complaint was lodged against several persons for the fraudulent loan sanction, the court noted that the specific allegation against the present petitioner (Accused No. 9) was limited to the fact that he “agreed to sale agreed and the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- transferred to the M.Gnanashekar in the month of January 2019.”
The judge pointed out that there were no direct allegations that the petitioner created the fraudulent documents, was involved in the bank’s internal proceedings, or was the original loan recipient. The court observed that the records only showed a “financial transaction between the complainant and the petitioner” (likely an indirect transaction involving the loan proceeds, though the details are not explicitly confirmed in the order). Based on the available records, the judge tentatively concluded that the petitioner “seems to be not involved in the present case” in the same capacity as the main conspirators.
The Court’s Decision on Anticipatory Bail
After hearing both the defence and the learned Public Prosecutor, who had argued against the bail on the grounds of potential absconding and tampering with evidence, the court weighed the severity of the punishment against the petitioner’s apparent role.
The judge stressed that the alleged offences, though serious and involving cheating and criminal breach of trust, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Central Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy (2013), the court noted that the focus at the bail stage is to determine whether there is a “genuine case against the accused” and if the prosecution can produce prima facie evidence, without requiring the guilt to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Considering the limited and secondary nature of the specific allegation against Gnanashekar, his status as a permanent resident, and his willingness to cooperate, the court found that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The court determined that the prosecution’s apprehension could be “safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions.”
Conditions for Pre-Arrest Release
The court ordered that the anticipatory bail petition be allowed, directing the Hanumanthanagar Police to release Gnanashekar on bail in the event of his arrest. The petitioner is required to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to strict conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 30 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation.
- The petitioner shall mark his attendance once every 30 days, preferably on the second Saturday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM before the Jurisdictional Police until the filing of the final report.
- The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant or tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
- The petitioner must appear before the trial court regularly upon receipt of summons and furnish residential address proof and that of the surety.
The order explicitly warns that failure to obey any of the conditions would automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail order.