The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted even in cases involving serious allegations if the circumstances do not warrant custodial interrogation and the accused demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the legal process.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.25/2023 of Chandra Layout Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 506, 34, 504, 418, 403, 406, 420 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. G. Manoj Ranka.

2. Heard Sri. Dharmapal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Krishna Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri. Ajay Kadkol, learned counsel for proposed respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. They are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They are having reasonable apprehension of being arrested. They are not having any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners received the amount from the complainant and they are willing to return the same and due to financial crunch, they could not return it in time. The cheques issued for refund of the amount were dishonored, but none of the penal provisions alleged by the informant, are applicable to the facts of the case. The offence is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are the permanent resident of Mallathahalli, Bangalore and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offence. Huge amount of more than Rupees One crore was borrowed by the petitioner with a promise of returning the same but they have not returned it. The cheques issued were dishonored. It is a clear case of misappropriation and commission of criminal breach of trust. Petitioners are absconding since the date of registration of the case. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

R E A S O N S

6. The allegations made against the petitioners are of serious nature. However, in substance, the allegations is that the accused have borrowed the amount of Rs.40, 00, 000.00 and Rs.50, 00, 000.00 on two occasions by promising to return the same with additional amount, but the amount was not returned. The cheques that were issued were dishonored.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 are not aware, as to whether any proceedings for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated or not. However, as per the first information report, cheque bounce cases are registered and pending for consideration. Simultaneously, the present complaint is filed making allegations to invoke the penal provisions referred above. The allegations made against the petitioners does not require them for custodial interrogation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.25/20