In a significant judicial order delivered on April 8, 2024, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3048/2024. The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail protection to Hithesh Ramesh in connection with Crime No. 32/2024 registered by the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for an offence punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station by Smt. N. Rajalakshmi, aged 40 years. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner introduced himself to the complainant on Facebook, posing as a government servant.

On September 7, 2023, the two met in person, during which the petitioner proposed marriage to the complainant. As their contact continued, the petitioner called the complainant on September 10, 2023, claiming an urgent financial crisis because his sister had met with an accident.

Believing his representation and relying on his promise of marriage, the complainant transferred funds across multiple transactions:

• September 10, 2023: ₹50,000/- transferred via Google Pay to the account of the petitioner’s brother-in-law, Preetham.
• September 11, 2023: ₹1,40,000/- transferred via NEFT.
• September 20, 2023: ₹45,000/- and ₹3,800/- transferred via Google Pay.

The complainant transferred a total sum of ₹2,78,800/- to the petitioner and his designated account. The prosecution alleged that after receiving the money under the false pretext of marriage, the petitioner refused to marry her, failed to return the funds, and cheated her while hurling abuses, insults, and life threats when questioned.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Hithesh Ramesh: Aged 35 years, care of Ramesh Shesappa, residing at Chandra Nivasa, 12th A Cross, Virupakshnagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was innocent of the alleged offence and had been falsely implicated by the complainant.
• Financial Status Evidence: The defence produced copies of the complainant’s salary slip and appointment letter to demonstrate her financial background and challenge the narrative of inducement.
• Non-Capital Offence: The defence emphasized that Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Undertaking: The applicant assured the court of his readiness to abide by all imposed conditions and furnish solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Prima Facie Case of Inducement and Fraud: The prosecution submitted that bank transaction receipts and communication logs established a clear money trail totaling ₹2,78,800/- obtained under a false promise of marriage.
• Necessity for Custodial Interrogation: The Investigating Officer argued that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the destination of the defrauded funds, investigate the involvement of named third-party account holders (such as Preetham), and complete the financial investigation.
• Apprehension of Witness Tampering and Repeat Harassment: The prosecution expressed serious concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner would intimidate the complainant, destroy digital evidence, or evade ongoing police investigation.
• Successive Bail Application: The prosecution pointed out that an earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner had been dismissed, and no change in circumstances was demonstrated to warrant a re-evaluation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, bank transfer records, earlier bail rejection orders, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Prima Facie Evidence and Deceitful Inducement

Judge Manjunatha observed that the prosecution records established a clear prima facie case depicting that the petitioner induced the complainant to transfer ₹2,78,800/- on the false pretext of marriage and an emergency medical crisis, subsequently misusing the funds and issuing threats.

2. Necessity of Interrogation in Financial Cheating

The court emphasized that in financial cheating cases involving digital fund transfers and claims of impersonation or false promises, custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation. The court noted that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation would hamper police efforts to gather evidence and recover defrauded amounts.

3. Lack of Changed Circumstances

The court highlighted that the petitioner’s previous anticipatory bail application had been dismissed by the court. In the absence of any material change in circumstances or investigation findings, a second application seeking the same relief was held non-maintainable.

4. Gravity of Offences Against Women

Considering the seriousness of cheating women through deceptive online interactions and false matrimonial promises, the court held that public interest and thorough investigation outweighed the plea for personal liberty under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

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 Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha formally dismissed the anticipatory bail petition on April 8, 2024:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner, Hithesh Ramesh, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.