The LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused in a case of alleged cheating related to a land sale agreement. The order, pronounced on August 30, 2023, by Sri. S. Nataraj, allowed the petition (Crl.Misc. No. 8100/2023) filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioners—Ananda.L. (55), Suresh Kumar H.L. (44), and Harsha Anand (27)—were seeking protection from arrest in Crime No. 162/2022 registered by the Basaveshwaranagara Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Cheating Allegations

The case originates from a complaint filed by Smt. Roopa.K on October 8, 2022. The complaint details an agreement signed on January 16, 2020, concerning the sale of agricultural land measuring 12 acres 32 guntas in Sy. No. 28 of Venkatapura village, Chikkaballapura district.

According to the complainant, the petitioners had agreed to sell the land for Rs. 3,60,00,000/- (Three Crores Sixty Lakhs) and received an advance amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-Five Lakhs). They had assured her that the land was free from any encumbrance and was currently rented out for a poultry farm to the IB group. The petitioners agreed to execute the registered sale deed within six months.

The core of the cheating allegation is that the petitioners subsequently suppressed vital information and defaulted on the agreement:

• The complainant later discovered that the petitioners had already executed earlier sale agreements with third parties for the same land.
• Petitioner No. 2, Suresh Kumar H.L., had borrowed a loan from Corporation Bank, Devanahalli, and had become a defaulter.
• In an attempt to refund the advance amount, the petitioners issued three cheques, two of which were subsequently dishonoured.
• The complainant also alleged that the loan taken by Suresh was leading to the complainant paying an EMI of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month (as per the prosecution’s objection statement).
• A Gift Deed was also allegedly executed in favor of Anand (Petitioner No. 1).

Based on these facts, the police registered a case against the petitioners for cheating.

Arguments and Judicial Deliberation

The petitioners’ counsel argued that they were innocent, had been falsely implicated, and that the allegations essentially stemmed from a civil dispute—a mere breach of contract—that was being given a criminal color. They also pointed out the significant delay in lodging the complaint (the agreement was in January 2020, but the FIR was in October 2022) and the alleged non-issuance of a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., which mandates police to issue a notice for appearance in cases where arrest is not immediately required.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, emphasizing the fraudulent execution of the sale agreement, the suppression of prior encumbrances (sale agreements with third parties, bank loan default), and the dishonesty demonstrated by the dishonor of the refund cheques. The prosecution contended that the investigation was pending and releasing the petitioners could lead to them tampering with evidence or threatening the complainant.

The court carefully considered the arguments, noting that the alleged agreement was made in 2020 and the complaint was filed in 2022. The judge remarked that a “mere breach of contract cannot be always amounts to cheating unless with fraudulent intention.”

The court observed that establishing whether the petitioners acted with a fraudulent intention to cheat right from the beginning would require a full investigation and trial. At this preliminary stage, the court deemed the dispute to be civil in nature.

Crucially, the court weighed the potential need for custodial interrogation against the fundamental right to liberty.

• The offences alleged (Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC) are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• The petitioners are permanent residents of the address shown in the cause title, making the chances of absconding remote.
• The court specifically found that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required for the alleged offences.
• The court also noted the apparent lack of a notice issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C., thereby invoking the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825), which emphasizes the judicious use of arrest power in cases involving lesser punishments.

Based on the facts, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the established judicial guidelines, the court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

Conditions of Release

The court ordered the petitioners to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, subject to each of them executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer (IO).

The bail order included the following mandatory conditions:

1. Cooperation with IO: The petitioners must appear before the IO on or before September 11, 2023, and thereafter as and when called upon for the purpose of investigation.
2. No Threat: The petitioners shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
3. Court Attendance: The petitioners shall regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
4. No Similar Offences: The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

The court explicitly stated that the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated. The ruling provides immediate relief to the petitioners while ensuring their continued participation in the investigation and trial process.