In a notable judicial order passed on April 16, 2024, the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-60), Sri K.S. Vijaya, B.Com., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2893/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Krishnappa (Accused No. 2) and Smt. Geetha (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 226/2023 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station by Smt. Gayathri G. Rao, wife of late Ramesh Rao. According to the complainant, the principal accused, Sushmitha (Accused No. 1), along with her parents Krishnappa and Geetha, approached her and instigated her to invest funds into a business venture.

Relying on their assurances, the complainant sold her gold ornaments and paid a total sum of ₹14,50,000/- (comprising payments of ₹4,50,000/- and ₹10,00,000/-) to the accused group. The complainant alleged that even after a year had elapsed, the promised business returns and principal amount were not repaid.

Following repeated demands for repayment, Accused No. 1 (Sushmitha) issued a cheque for ₹6,00,000/- dated September 10, 2022. However, when presented, the cheque was dishonored by the bank with the endorsement “Signature Differs.” The complainant alleged that Sushmitha and her parents had systematically defrauded multiple individuals by accepting money on false promises and issuing cheques with intentional signature discrepancies.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Krishnappa (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 2): Aged 64 years, son of Thagadegowda.
• Smt. Geetha (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 3): Aged 50 years, wife of Krishnappa.
• Address: Both residing at No. 56, Kenchenahalli, 1st Cross, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 098.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

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

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had not received the funds directly, and were roped into the case solely because they are the parents of Accused No. 1.
• Ground of Parity: Attention was drawn to the fact that Accused No. 1 (Sushmitha) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court in Crl. Misc. No. 11964/2023 vide order dated December 14, 2023. Additionally, a co-accused (Rahees Ahmmed) whose name was not in the initial FIR was also granted pre-arrest protection in Crl. Misc. No. 11995/2023.
• Secondary Role: The defence submitted that the primary transaction, business promise, and cheque issuance were between the complainant and Accused No. 1. No independent overt acts or separate financial recoveries were alleged against the parents.
• Senior Citizenship and Roots in Society: Petitioner No. 1 is 64 years old, and both petitioners are long-time permanent residents of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, with no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The petitioners promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation, submit to all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections:

• Prima Facie Case: The prosecution submitted that case records and witness statements established that the petitioners accompanied Accused No. 1 and actively persuaded the complainant to sell her gold and part with ₹14.5 Lakhs.
• Apprehension of Non-Cooperation: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might tamper with prosecution witnesses, fail to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, or abscond to evade trial.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, earlier bail orders, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Application of the Principle of Parity

Judge K.S. Vijaya observed that the court had already examined the core facts of Crime No. 226/2023 and granted anticipatory bail to the main accused, Sushmitha (Accused No. 1), on December 14, 2023. Since the principal beneficiary and cheque drawer was already on bail, the court held that her parents (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) were entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.

2. Absence of Independent Overt Acts

The court noted that the specific allegation against the petitioners was that they accompanied their daughter and asked the complainant to “repose faith” in her. The court highlighted that there were no independent financial transactions or separate contractual commitments attributed solely to the parents outside of the daughter’s business dealings.

3. Non-Capital Penalties and Protection Against Arrest

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate. Holding that the apprehension of arrest following FIR registration was genuine, the court concluded that the interests of the prosecution could be adequately protected by imposing standard conditions.

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 full-fledged trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri K.S. Vijaya allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed on the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police within 2 weeks from the date of this order.
2. In the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each along with one surety for the likesum.
3. The petitioners shall not tamper with or threaten the prosecution witnesses.