In a notable judicial order passed on April 3, 2024, the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), Sri T. Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3094/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Manish Gajendra in connection with Crime No. 75/2023 registered by the Bharathi Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the Bharathi Nagar Police Station regarding a high-value automobile transaction.

According to the complainant:

• She intended to sell her luxury vehicle—a Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 bearing registration number PY-05-C-7479, valued at approximately ₹2.30 Crore.
• The complainant informed Accused No. 1 (a second-hand car dealer) that an active car loan of ₹1.85 Crore was outstanding on the vehicle with ICICI Bank.
• Expressing interest in purchasing the SUV, Accused No. 1 instructed the complainant to bring the vehicle near St. John’s Church Road, Bengaluru. Upon her arrival, Accused No. 1 introduced the petitioner, Manish Gajendra, as the prospective buyer.
• Following preliminary price discussions, the petitioner took the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 for a test drive.
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to return from the test drive, absconded with the luxury car, and did not pay the agreed purchase consideration. When the complainant subsequently confronted Accused No. 1 to recover her vehicle or money, she was abused with filthy language and subjected to life threats.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Manish Gajendra: Aged 36 years, son of Gajendra, residing at No. 8, 1st Cross, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, was a complete stranger to the transaction between the complainant and Accused No. 1, and had been falsely implicated.
• Civil Nature of the Dispute: The defence submitted that the dispute pertained to a commercial transaction involving a vehicle sale and loan clearance, which was commercial/civil in nature rather than criminal.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Roots in Society and Undertaking: The applicant emphasized that he is a permanent resident of Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru, with deep roots in society and no prior criminal antecedents. He promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation, abide by all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Prima Facie Case of Abscondance and Theft: The prosecution submitted that the petitioner took a high-value vehicle worth ₹2.30 Crore under the guise of a test drive and failed to return it, establishing a clear prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
• Risk of Non-Cooperation and Witness Interference: The prosecution expressed serious apprehension that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner would abscond, fail to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, tamper with prosecution evidence, or intimidate the complainant.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

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

1. Civil/Commercial Texture of Transaction

Judge T. Govindaiah observed that while the complaint alleged that the petitioner took the vehicle for a test drive and failed to return it or pay the money, the underlying transaction arose out of a second-hand automobile sale deal involving an existing bank loan. The court noted that the controversy possessed a commercial/civil dimension.

2. Jurisdiction and Nature of Penalties

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under IPC Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not attract sentences of death or life imprisonment.

3. Securing Trial Attendance Through Conditions

Holding that pre-trial detention was not strictly required when trial attendance could be secured through stringent conditions, the court concluded that directing the petitioner to appear regularly before the IV A.C.M.M. Court and submit to investigation directives would safeguard the prosecution’s interests.

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, LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri T. Govindaiah allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 75/2023 of Bharathi Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum within 15 days from the date of this order to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
2. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.
3. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof.
4. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
5. The petitioner shall not commit offences of a similar nature.
6. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the court.