The Court of the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), presided over by Sri Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2869/2024 on May 14, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Sandesh Mane (Petitioner No. 1) and Bharath Kumar N. (Petitioner No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 199/2023 registered by the Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by an individual named Sathisha. According to the informant, he received a phone call on August 19, 2023, from a loan recovery agent representing YES Bank, directing him to clear outstanding Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) dues on a bank loan.

The complainant asserted that he had never applied for or availed of any loan from YES Bank. Upon conducting an internal verification, the complainant discovered that an individual had fraudulently created a counterfeit PAN Card by affixing the complainant’s photograph onto it. Using this forged identity document, the perpetrator secured a bank loan from YES Bank and defaulted on repayments. Based on these statements, Cubbon Park Police registered Crime No. 199/2023 under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Sandesh Mane (Petitioner No. 1): Aged 35 years, son of R. Sadashiva Rao, residing at No. 350/3, Chandrashekar Azad Road, Near Gavigangadhareshwara Temple Road, Gavipuram, Bengaluru – 560019.
• Bharath Kumar N. (Petitioner No. 2): Aged 41 years, son of Nataraj Murthy, residing at No. 45, 2nd Main, Near Kempegowda Swimming Pool, Bhavani Nagar, Bengaluru – 560019.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri S. Rama Rao presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Claim of Innocence and Lack of Criminal Antecedents: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged identity theft and loan fraud, hailing from respectable backgrounds with no prior criminal records.
• Unexplained Delay in Lodging FIR: The defense highlighted a notable delay in filing the complaint. Although the complainant received the recovery notice on August 19, 2023, he delayed approaching the police until October 7, 2023, without offering a valid explanation for the two-month gap.
• Non-Capital Penalties: The alleged offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
• Cooperation with Investigation: The applicants received police notices regarding the inquiry and immediately sought legal protection. They expressed complete willingness to abide by all court conditions, furnish solvent sureties, and participate in investigation proceedings.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a formal statement of objections accompanied by a status report from the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Cubbon Park Police Station:

• Ongoing Investigation and Interrogation Need: The prosecution submitted that the investigation into the forged PAN card, loan application records, and disbursed funds was actively in progress, making the custodial availability of the suspects necessary.
• Apprehension of Abscondance and Tampering: The state expressed concern that if granted pre-arrest protection, the petitioners might abscond, evade police interrogation, or tamper with material documentary evidence.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the FIR, complaint timeline, seizure mahazars, and submissions from both sides, Judge Sabappa examined the petitioners’ entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Delay in Lodging Complaint

The court observed that while the bank notice was issued to the complainant on August 19, 2023, the formal complaint was lodged only on October 7, 2023. The court noted that this two-month delay was a relevant factor at the preliminary stage when evaluating the necessity of pre-trial arrest.

2. Status of Investigation and Documentary Evidence

The court noted that the investigating officer had already conducted spot mahazars, seized disputed cheques and loan applications, and was in the process of forwarding them to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert examination. Because key documentary records were already in police custody, physical detention was unwarranted.

3. Non-Capital Offences and Trial Safeguards

Highlighting that the alleged penal provisions under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract death or life imprisonment, the court held that a proper balance must be struck between facilitating a fair investigation and preventing unnecessary harassment or unjustified detention. The court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be safeguarded through 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 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Sandesh Mane and Bharath Kumar N. in Crime No. 199/2023 of Cubbon Park Police Station.

The court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of the order and co-operate with the investigation.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. The petitioners shall not abscond from their ordinary residences and shall furnish verified address proofs to the police.
5. The petitioners shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. The petitioners shall mark their attendance at the Cubbon Park Police Station on the 2nd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM until the filing of the final report.