In a notable judicial order passed on March 27, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2853 of 2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Avinash in connection with Crime No. 345/2023 (arising from PCR No. 84/2023) registered by the Amruthahally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Background and Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in PCR No. 84/2023 by M/s Adhishakthi Cars Pvt. Ltd., a company operating a car showroom in Bengaluru. According to the complainant, the petitioner, Avinash, was introduced by an interior design contact to undertake fabrication and PVD coating work for their office renovation.
On April 15, 2022, the petitioner issued a quotation for Rs. 5,50,000/- plus 18% GST. Based on the purchase order dated May 9, 2022, the work was required to be completed within 25 days. The payment terms required a 70% advance, with the remaining 30% payable upon completion and certification. On May 10, 2022, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 3,77,300/- as an advance payment.
The complainant alleged that after taking measurements and receiving the advance amount, the petitioner failed to execute the work within the stipulated 15-day timeframe following receipt of the advance. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner stopped answering phone calls and abandoned the project.
After initially approaching the Amruthahally Police without success, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court. The complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of Crime No. 345/2023.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Avinash: Aged about 29 years, son of Maddurappa, residing at 18th Main, 41st C Cross, Jayanagara 9th Block, Bengaluru; also operating at Urban Design.in, No. 29, 41st Cross, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri G.C. Lohith Kumar presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- Innocence and Civil Nature of Dispute: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent of the alleged offences, had been falsely implicated, and that the matter essentially pertained to a contractual or commercial dispute over interior design execution.
- Delay in Lodging Complaint: The defence highlighted an unexplained delay of more than five months in filing the private complaint.
- Frequent Design Changes: It was submitted that the delay in executing the work occurred because the complainant frequently altered and modified the design specifications from time to time after handing over the initial layouts.
- Non-Capital Offences: Counsel emphasized that the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
- Cooperation: The petitioner assured the court of his willingness to abide by all conditions, cooperate fully with the police investigation, and furnish adequate sureties.
Objections Raised by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that:
- Prima Facie Material: Case records demonstrated that the petitioner received a substantial advance payment of Rs. 3,77,300/- and failed to complete the work, prima facie establishing elements of cheating and breach of trust.
- Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was in progress, and granting pre-arrest bail might lead to the petitioner threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, or evading trial.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, case records, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for pre-arrest protection.
1. Evaluation of Penal Provisions and Offence Nature
Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that the offences alleged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are non-capital in nature and not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
2. Contractual Dispute and Trial Standard
The court noted that the dispute arose from an agreement concerning interior design fabrication and advance payment. Whether the delay constituted a criminal intent to cheat or a mere breach of contract is a matter to be established during the trial. Since the case was under investigation and the petitioner expressed full readiness to cooperate, pre-arrest protection could be granted without hindering police probe requirements.
3. Safeguarding Personal Liberty
Holding that the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding non-cooperation or witness tampering could be effectively managed by imposing conditions, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.
It remains a settled principle of criminal law that an order granting pre-arrest protection is a procedural safeguard and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate merits of the case, which remains subject to trial.
Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent Amruthahally Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 345/2023 (PCR No. 84/2023) for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
- The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity.
- The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.