The Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, presided over by Sri Hareesha A., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3040/2024 on April 24, 2024. The judicial order granted pre-arrest protection to Vishnu Mahadev Matere (Accused No. 3), Smt. Sindhu Vishnu Matere (Accused No. 4), and Mahesh Maruti Matere (Accused No. 5) in connection with Crime No. 53/2024 registered by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners, who serve as Directors of M/s. V.M. Matere Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 421 (dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix of the Dispute and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint filed by the Manager of M/s. Pragathi Inframaterials Trading Private Limited, situated at Indiranagar, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution case, Accused No. 1, M/s. Zetwerk Private Limited, operates as a business-to-business platform bridging raw material suppliers and construction companies. Zetwerk introduced the complainant firm to Accused No. 2, M/s. V.M. Matere Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, a Pune-based infrastructure firm engaged in constructing government-funded road, bridge, and flyover projects across Maharashtra, including the Phase-II expansion of the Khed-Sinner section of National Highway 50 (NH-50).
It was alleged that Zetwerk procured raw materials such as cement, steel, bitumen, and sand from the complainant company on trade credit terms for the execution of these road projects. The suppliers were assured that payments would be routed through an established escrow account. However, in April 2023, payments to the complainant firm ceased. Upon follow-ups, Zetwerk allegedly shared a copy of a letter dated March 23, 2022, bearing a seal from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) dated March 25, 2022, claiming that the escrow account was being transitioned to a YES Bank Escrow Account to facilitate smooth disbursements.
Relying on these representations, the complainant continued business interactions. According to the internal books of account maintained by the complainant company, outstanding dues accrued to the extent of ₹8,50,92,423/- (Rupees Eight Crore Fifty Lakh Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Three only) as of March 31, 2023. When non-payment persisted, the complainant conducted an internal verification with NHAI and discovered that the authority had never received the letter dated March 23, 2022, and that the official seal affixed thereon was fraudulent. Consequently, a criminal complaint was lodged alleging a coordinated financial fraud and forgery against Zetwerk, V.M. Matere Infrastructures, and its Directors.
Defense Arguments Presented by the Petitioners
Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Anand Muttalli submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated and that no prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or forgery was made out against them. The defense emphasized that a Material Supply Agreement dated March 16, 2022, was executed strictly between Accused No. 1 (Zetwerk) and Accused No. 2 (V.M. Matere Infrastructures). Crucially, no direct contractual arrangement or privity of contract existed between the complainant company and the petitioners (Accused Nos. 3 to 5).
The defense highlighted that the primary accusation against the petitioners pertained to their corporate roles as Directors of V.M. Matere Infrastructures, whereas the transmission of the contested letter dated March 23, 2022, was executed by Zetwerk. Furthermore, counsel submitted that there were no assertions that the petitioners directly furnished misleading financial details to the complainant. The defense maintained that the dispute was entirely commercial in nature regarding unpaid supply accounts, which the complainant sought to color with criminal attributes. Given that the case rested predominantly on written supply contracts, invoices, and banking correspondence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest protection by filing formal objections. The prosecution argued that prima facie material existed on record demonstrating that the accused entities colluded to obtain massive construction supplies worth over ₹8.5 Crore under false assurances of escrow fund releases. The state expressed apprehension that releasing the Pune-based directors on anticipatory bail would hamper the ongoing investigation, lead to witness tampering, or create flight risks that would impede trial proceedings.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the complaint, contract copies, and documentary submissions, Judge Hareesha A. evaluated whether the petitioners had established valid grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the Material Supply Agreement dated March 16, 2022, governed the relationship between Zetwerk and V.M. Matere Infrastructures, confirming the absence of direct contractual privity between the complainant company and the individual directors of the construction firm.
The court noted that the document containing the disputed NHAI seal was issued in the context of transactions involving Zetwerk, precluding definitive attribution of forgery to the petitioners at this stage. Additionally, the court observed that the complainant dispatched goods without verifying or receiving finalized escrow account particulars. Evaluating the entire record, the court held that the allegations exhibited characteristics aligned with a civil commercial dispute, which had been given a criminal complexion to pressure the accused.
The court emphasized that since the prosecution’s case relies predominantly on documentary evidence and corporate correspondence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unwarranted. Observing that the alleged offences under IPC Sections 120B, 421, 406, 420, and 468 read with Section 34 are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, the court concluded that the state’s apprehensions regarding investigation cooperation could be managed by imposing strict conditions.
Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Vishnu Mahadev Matere, Smt. Sindhu Vishnu Matere, and Mahesh Maruti Matere in Crime No. 53/2024 of Indiranagar Police Station.
The court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall appear before the police within 15 days from the date of the order and as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.
- The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioners shall not commit similar offences in the future.
- The petitioners shall cooperate fully with the investigating agency.