The Court of the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on March 28, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2810/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to three petitioners—Sri S. Ramesh (Accused No. 1), Smt. Mohana Priya (Accused No. 2), and Sri Sanjay (Accused No. 3)—in connection with Crime No. 25/2024 registered by the Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by one Hanumantharaya regarding an alleged financial and loan fraud:

• Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) Scheme: According to the complainant, in 2021, accused Nos. 1 and 2 (husband and wife) approached him, stating that Canara Bank was disbursing loans under the Central Government’s Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme for small-scale industries to purchase machinery, which included a 30% government subsidy.
• Loan Disbursal and Diversion: Believing their representation, the complainant handed over his Aadhaar card, PAN card, IT returns, and GST certificate. The accused allegedly submitted a duplicate quotation from Manjunatha Engineering Workshop to the bank, securing a loan of ₹17,80,000/- in the complainant’s name, which was subsequently transferred to their own account under the pretext of supplying centering materials.
• Default Notice & Realization: When the complainant inquired about the materials, the accused postponed giving answers. After three months, bank officials informed the complainant that he was required to pay monthly installments of ₹22,000/- from loan account No. 170002727628, revealing that the accused had misappropriated the ₹17,80,000/- for personal use and cheated multiple other individuals. Consequently, the Bagalagunte police registered Crime No. 25/2024.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Sri S. Ramesh, aged 52 years, son of Late T.C. Subramani.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Smt. Mohana Priya, aged 43 years, wife of S. Ramesh.
• Common Address for Petitioners 1 & 2: No. 122/A, 4th Cross, 40 Feet Main Road, WOC Road, Manjunatha Nagar, Bengaluru – 560010.
• Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3: Sri Sanjay, aged 27 years, son of P. Nanda Kumar, residing at No. 122, 4th Cross, 40 Feet Main Road, West of Chord Road, Manjunathanagar, Bengaluru – 560010.
• Legal Representation: Sri M.B.S., Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and Business Transaction: The defense contended that the petitioners were entirely innocent and that the complainant was fully aware of the central loan scheme and had willingly obtained the loan from Canara Bank. Counsel asserted that the petitioners had indeed supplied centering materials which were utilized by the complainant, and that the complaint was cooked up to evade EMI liabilities arising from business losses.
2. Ground of Parity: The defense highlighted that the trial court had already enlarged Accused No. 4 on bail in the same crime number, making the present petitioners equally entitled to pre-arrest protection under the principle of parity.
3. Readiness to Cooperate: The petitioners expressed complete readiness to abide by stringent conditions and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Grievous Economic Offence: The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application by filing written objections, emphasizing that the petitioners had systematically cheated the complainant of a huge sum of money by creating duplicate quotations and misusing government subsidy schemes.
2. Flight Risk and Tampering: The state argued that enlarging the accused on bail at the investigative stage would hamper the probe, destroy evidence, and lead to witness intimidation or abscondance.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. evaluated the material on record, the nature of the allegations, and the arguments advanced by both sides, recording definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Non-Capital Nature of Offences: The court noted that the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry a mandatory sentence of death or life imprisonment.
2. Principle of Parity: Taking cognizance of the fact that co-accused (Accused No. 4) had already been granted bail by the trial court, the Sessions Court held that the present petitioners were entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.
3. Safeguarding Prosecution Interests: Concluding that the matter was still under investigation and that any apprehensions regarding witness tampering or flight risk could be adequately addressed through conditional restrictions, the court ruled in favor of granting anticipatory bail.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court directed the Bagalagunte police to release Sri S. Ramesh (Accused No. 1), Smt. Mohana Priya (Accused No. 2), and Sri Sanjay (Accused No. 3) on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 25/2024, upon execution of a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety each for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Court Attendance & Cooperation: The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
2. Investigative Call: They shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. No Tampering: They shall not tamper with evidence or threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
4. Non-Recidivism: They shall not involve themselves in any criminal activity.
5. Address Verification: They shall produce valid documentation verifying their permanent address.