The Court of the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), presided over by Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2846/2024 on April 1, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 34-year-old Raju (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 94/2016 (C.C. No. 15539/2017) registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout (K.S. Layout) Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank against the bank’s panel appraiser and several borrowers. According to the prosecution charge sheet:
- Alleged Modus Operandi: Accused No. 1, a goldsmith by profession, served as the bank’s panel goldsmith/appraiser. Accused Nos. 2 through 7 allegedly colluded with Accused No. 1 to obtain jewelry loans by pledging spurious and low-purity gold ornaments.
- Audit and Re-Appraisal Findings: During a routine audit inspection conducted by officials deputed from the bank’s regional office, a re-appraisal of the pledged jewelry revealed that the ornaments were of significantly lesser purity—approximately 10-carat gold—thereby defrauding the bank.
Following the investigation, the K.S. Layout Police submitted a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate court (C.C. No. 15539/2017).
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Raju (Petitioner / Accused No. 2): Aged about 34 years, son of Mahadeva, residing at No. 82, 4th Cross, 7th Main, Kaveri Nagar, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru.
Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Murthy M.V. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
- Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had no bad antecedents, and was falsely implicated in the charge sheet.
- No Recovery Pending: Counsel emphasized that no recoveries were pending at the instance of the petitioner.
- Completion of Investigation: The investigating agency had already completed its probe and submitted the final charge sheet; hence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
- Non-Capital Offences: The alleged offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.
- Local Roots & Undertaking: Being a permanent resident of Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru, the petitioner assured the court of his readiness to abide by all conditions and furnish solvent sureties.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by filing formal objections:
- Prima Facie Material in Charge Sheet: The state argued that a thorough investigation established a prima facie case of conspiracy between the bank appraiser and the borrowers to defraud a public sector bank using fake gold.
- Evasion of Process: The prosecution contended that the charge sheet had already been filed and that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail might hamper trial proceedings or lead to non-appearance before the trial court.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the charge sheet records, FIR details, and submissions, Judge A.V. Patil evaluated the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1. Completion of Investigation
The court observed that because the police investigation was complete and the final charge sheet had already been submitted in C.C. No. 15539/2017, the physical custody of Accused No. 2 was no longer required for investigative purposes.
2. Statutory Punishment and Magistrate Trial
The court noted that while the alleged offences are non-bailable, they are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry mandatory penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused remains a matter to be proven during a full-fledged trial.
3. Protection of Rights and Local Antecedents
Acknowledging that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal record, the court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial cooperation could be adequately managed by imposing strict conditions.
Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Raju in Crime No. 94/2016 (C.C. No. 15539/2017) of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station.
The court directed that in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- The petitioner shall appear before the trial court during trial proceedings and co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case.
- The petitioner shall not commit offences similar to the one alleged against him.
- The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his Aadhaar card and present residential address proof to the Investigating Officer.