The LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-60), Sri K.S. Vijaya, B.Com., LL.M., granted anticipatory bail to Krishnappa (Accused No. 2) and Smt. Geetha (Accused No. 3) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2893/2024 on April 16, 2024. The court extended pre-arrest bail protection to both petitioners in connection with Crime No. 226/2023 registered at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners apprehended arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Background and Allegations
The criminal proceedings arose from a complaint filed by Smt. Gayathri G. Rao, wife of late Ramesh Rao, at the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station. According to the complainant, the principal accused, Sushmitha (Accused No. 1), along with her parents Krishnappa and Geetha, persuaded her to invest funds into a business venture. Based on their representations, the informant sold her gold ornaments and handed over a total sum of ₹14,50,000/- (comprising installments of ₹4,50,000/- and ₹10,00,000/-) to the accused persons.
Despite the passage of a year, the accused failed to return the principal investment or yield the promised business returns. Following repeated demands, Accused No. 1 (Sushmitha) issued a cheque for ₹6,00,000/- dated September 10, 2022. However, upon presentation, the bank dishonoured the cheque with the endorsement “Signature Differs.” The complainant alleged that Sushmitha and her parents defrauded multiple victims by inducing financial contributions and issuing cheques featuring intentionally mismatched signatures.
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.
Defense Submissions and Ground of Parity
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Sri Raghu N.R. submitted that both applicants were entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had not committed any unlawful act. The defense highlighted that the primary transaction, business representations, and cheque issuance occurred between the complainant and Accused No. 1. Counsel emphasized that no independent overt acts or distinct financial transactions were attributed to the parents.
Importantly, the defense brought to the court’s attention that Accused No. 1 (Sushmitha) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court in Crl. Misc. No. 11964/2023 on December 14, 2023. Additionally, a co-accused named Rahees Ahmmed, whose name was not included in the initial FIR, had also received pre-arrest protection in Crl. Misc. No. 11995/2023. Grounded on the principle of parity, the defense urged the court to grant similar pre-arrest relief to the petitioners.
Prosecution Objections
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application by filing a formal statement of objections. The prosecution contended that prima facie material existed on record demonstrating the active involvement of the petitioners in committing the alleged financial fraud.
The state expressed apprehension that if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioners might tamper with prosecution witnesses, obstruct ongoing police investigation, or abscond to evade trial. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the petition, FIR records, and prior bail orders, the Sessions Court formulated the primary point for consideration: whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Judge K.S. Vijaya observed that the specific allegation against the petitioners was limited to accompanying their daughter (Accused No. 1) when money was received and asking the complainant to repose faith in her.
The court noted that there were no independent or standalone allegations of financial misappropriation against the parents outside their daughter’s business dealings. Furthermore, since the principal accused (Accused No. 1) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the court on December 14, 2023, the petitioners were entitled to equal relief under the doctrine of parity, subject to similar protective conditions.
Final Order and Conditions Imposed
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Krishnappa and Smt. Geetha in Crime No. 226/2023.
The grant of pre-arrest protection was made subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police within 2 weeks from the date of the order.
- In the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- each along with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioners shall not tamper with or threaten the prosecution witnesses.