In a notable judicial order delivered on April 6, 2024, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3104/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Hemanth Kumar G (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 120/2024 registered by the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 415, and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a Private Criminal Complaint (PCR No. 15027/2023) filed before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru, which was subsequently referred to the Yelahanka New Town Police Station for investigation, leading to the registration of Crime No. 120/2024.

According to the complainant, she owned commercial transport vehicles and attached them to the petitioner’s logistics firm, “SLV Logistics.” Desiring to expand her fleet, she approached M/s Cholamandalam Financial Services, Yelahanka, to apply for a vehicle loan. During this process, Accused No. 2, representing himself as an employee of the finance company, collected signed blank cheques and Know Your Customer (KYC) verification documents from the complainant.

The complainant alleged that after the loan application was rejected, Accused No. 2 failed to return the documents and instead passed the signed cheques to Hemanth Kumar G (Petitioner / Accused No. 1). The complainant further alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹10,000,000 (₹10 Lakhs) to return the cheques, thereby committing dishonest misappropriation and cheating.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Hemanth Kumar G (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 30 years, son of Govindappa M, sole proprietor of SLV Logistics, residing at Gejadahalli, Dasanapura, Shivanapura Hobli, Bengaluru – 562 163.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Raksith R. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Existence of Prior Section 138 NI Act Proceedings: The defence submitted that the complainant had borrowed money from the petitioner on multiple occasions via cash, Google Pay, and PhonePe for business operations. To discharge this debt, the complainant issued cheques drawn on Federal Bank, Bengaluru. Upon presentation, the cheques bounced with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer,” prompting the petitioner to file a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
• Malicious Prosecution & Counter-Blast FIR: Counsel argued that the present criminal complaint (PCR No. 15027/2023) was filed solely to retaliate against the legitimate cheque dishonor proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color: The defence asserted that the transaction was commercial/financial in nature, creating no grounds for custodial interrogation.
• Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged under Sections 403, 415, and 420 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with fixed business operations and no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The petitioner promised to abide by all court conditions and furnish solvent sureties for his regular appearance.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections alongside the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Prima Facie Material: The prosecution submitted that the allegations in the private complaint demonstrated a prima facie case of cheating and misuse of loan security cheques.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might threaten the complainant, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or evade investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, PCR records, Section 138 NI Act case details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Civil/Financial Dispute and Abuse of Process

Judge Nisharani A.C. observed that the dispute between the parties stemmed from financial transactions, transport business dealings, and disputed cheque holdings. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in 2020(1) KCCR SN 29 (SC), the court emphasized that when the core issue between parties is civil or contractual in nature, continuing criminal proceedings without pre-arrest protection constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

2. Nature of Penalties and Trial Evaluation

The court highlighted that none of the offences alleged under Sections 403, 415, and 420 read with Section 34 IPC carry sentences of death or life imprisonment. The court held that the truth regarding debt liabilities and cheque issuance must be established through a full-fledged trial rather than pre-trial detention.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Examining the cause title, address details, and official identification documents, the court found that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru. The court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Nisharani A.C. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 120/2024 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum amount.
2. The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
5. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
7. If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above-stated conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand canceled.