The court affirms that anticipatory bail should consider the nature of the offense, evidence tampering risks, and the accused's professional status.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.596/2025 of Manimala Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Section s 318 and 319 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).

3. The prosecution case is as follows :-

The accused, with the intention and premeditation to cheat the complainant, met her when she sought admission to a nursing course in 2022. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 introduced themselves to her. Accused No. 1 claimed to be a staff member with administrative authority at Indo Asian Academy, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore, and further represented that the institution was recognized by the Indian Nursing Council. On the basis of these false representations, the accused convinced the complainant that they would secure her admission to the B.Sc. Nursing course at the said institution. Pursuant to the instructions of Accused Nos. 1 and 3, the complainant's mother transferred a sum of Rs. 1,91,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-One Thousand Five Hundred only) to the applicant's account through her employer in the Gulf. After receiving the amount, the accused failed to remit the money to the institution. The complainant subsequently discovered that the institution was not recognized by the Indian Nursing Council. When she demanded a refund, the accused assured her that the money would be returned, but they have not refunded the amount till date. Thus, Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant, causing wrongful loss to her.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior public prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no direct role in the transactions alleged. The learned counsel submitted that it was accused Nos.1 and 3 directly dealt with the defacto complainant. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had no direct connection, communication, negotiation or interaction with the complainant or his mother. It is further submitted that the alleged deception was executed solely by accused No.1.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. On perusal of the Case Diary and the pleadings of the petitioner, I feel that the petitioner has established a prima facie case. The petitioner is a lady. It is submitted that she is a lawyer by profession.

8. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] held thus:

“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous