A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Sri. Deepa Kanthan (Accused No. 4) in connection with an alleged job scam case registered at the Kempapura Agrahara Police Station. Presiding Judge Sri. Rajesh Karnam, LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing that the petitioner’s name was not originally mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that the alleged financial transactions were primarily linked to co-accused persons.
Case Background and Factual Matrix
The case registered under Crime No. 141/2022 stems from a complaint alleging a job fraud scheme involving promises of employment at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution, the complainant was introduced to one Shivaji Rao, who in turn introduced him to another individual named Nishanth P. Shetty. The parties allegedly assured the complainant that employment would be secured at the airport without requiring a physical medical examination, citing ongoing COVID-19 protocols.
Believing these representations, the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of Rs. 2,99,800, out of which Rs. 2,92,000 was transferred directly into the bank account of Shivaji Rao over time. However, when the promised job failed to materialize, the complainant approached the Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, leading to the registration of an FIR invoking multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The Police registered offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 472 (making or possessing counterfeit seal), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC, alongside Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
Submissions by the Petitioner and Prosecution
Appearing on behalf of petitioner Deepa Kanthan, Advocate Sri. M. Nagendra argued that the petitioner is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman who served as a Hawaldar in the Indian Army until his retirement on July 31, 2018, was employed as a supervisor at I.S.I., Bengaluru, and engaged in a business under the name Prime Constructions.
The defence highlighted that the complainant had not named Deepa Kanthan in the initial complaint or FIR, and his name only surfaced later in a remand application filed by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, counsel pointed out a significant delay between the alleged date of commission of the crime (December 24, 2020) and the formal registration of the complaint (September 2, 2022). It was submitted that the petitioner had no involvement or connection with the alleged fraudulent promises or monetary transactions.
Opposing the petition, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons had intentionally defrauded the complainant of Rs. 2,99,000. The prosecution argued that granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation, as the police needed to summon the accused individuals, record their statements, and collect further evidence. It was contended that the accused had evaded investigation and that pre-arrest bail would cause undue delays in completing the inquiry.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
After reviewing the petition, prosecution objections, and the Case Diary (C.D.) submitted by the Investigating Officer, the court observed that the financial payments in question were transferred to co-accused Shivaji Rao. The court noted that the petitioner’s name did not figure in the primary allegations framed by the complainant, but appeared subsequently during the investigation stage in the remand application.
Considering that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and that the primary financial transactions were directed to another party, the court found sufficient grounds to exercise its discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant conditional anticipatory bail.
Key Conditions of the Bail Order
In its order dated January 12, 2023, in Crl.Misc.No.70/2023, the court ordered that in the event of arrest, the respondent police shall release Deepa Kanthan on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly during trial proceedings.
- The petitioner shall not abscond from his residence and must furnish address proof to the concerned police station.
- The petitioner shall not involve himself in any kind of criminal offence.
- The petitioner shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission from the jurisdictional court.
The court explicitly stipulated that any breach of these conditions would grant the Investigating Officer liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.