Bengaluru, May 3, 2024 – In a significant development in a case of alleged cheating and criminal conspiracy, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-62) in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to an elderly couple, Arif Abu Suffian Khatai Arif (65) and Syeda Massarath Unnisa Arif (60), who were arraigned as accused No. 1 and 3, respectively, in Cr. No. 27/2024 of Kengeri Police Station. The case involves offences punishable under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bail application, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., was allowed by the court, presided over by Sri Sirajuddeen A., on the grounds that the evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, which reduces the likelihood of evidence tampering by the petitioners. Furthermore, the court noted that the punishment for the alleged offences is not death or life imprisonment, and the petitioners, being permanent residents of Bengaluru, are unlikely to flee from justice.

Allegations in the Complaint

The core of the case revolves around a lease agreement for a flat in an apartment building in Kengeri. According to the First Information Report (FIR) and the accompanying complaint, the petitioners (Accused No. 1 and 3) introduced themselves to the complainant as the owners of the apartment building, with a co-accused (Accused No. 2, Shabbir Ahmed) acting as their General Power of Attorney (GPA) Holder for managing the property.

The complainant entered into a lease agreement dated November 21, 2022, for a flat in the building for a period of two years, paying a total of Rs. 8,00,000/- as lease amount through cash, Demand Draft (DD), and PhonePe to the GPA Holder (Accused No. 2), who subsequently issued receipts.

The cheating allegations include several points of deception:

• Eviction Notice: The petitioner No. 1, Arif Abu Suffian Khatai Arif, issued a notice dated August 10, 2023, directing the complainant to vacate the flat within three months.
• Separate Electricity Meters: The accused persons allegedly collected Rs. 15,000/- from each tenant, totaling Rs. 3,15,000/-, on the promise of providing separate electricity meters. However, the electricity was disconnected on October 3, 2023, by BESCOM authorities due to outstanding dues of Rs. 2,23,400/- for the entire apartment.
• Property Mortgage/Sale: The complainant later discovered that the flat he was leasing had already been sold to a Mrs. Emilian Moterio via a sale deed dated January 24, 2018. It was also alleged that the property was mortgaged, leading the complainant to believe that the accused, along with others, hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat them.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners and other accused colluded to cheat them by inducing them to take a mortgaged flat on lease, and then demanded they vacate without refunding the lease amount.

Petitioners’ Defense and Court’s Rationale

The petitioners’ counsel, Sri N.M. Handral, argued their innocence, specifically contending that the petitioners had not seen the complainant, had not personally let out the flat to him, nor had they received any money directly from him. They asserted that the complainant had primarily dealt with the GPA Holder (Accused No. 2), and their implication in the case was false. Notably, it was brought to the court’s attention that petitioner No. 1 himself had previously lodged a separate complaint against the GPA Holder (Accused No. 2) in Cr. No. 393/2023 at Jayanagar Police Station, for which the co-accused is currently under judicial custody.

The prosecution, while opposing the bail citing the possibility of the petitioners threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence, did not manage to convince the court that custodial interrogation was essential.

The court carefully analyzed the arguments and the material on record, arriving at the following key conclusions:

1. Nature of Evidence: The court observed that the core transactions involved a lease agreement and money transfers, which are likely supported by documentary evidence (Lease agreement, payment receipts, sale deeds, and bank records). The Judge reasoned that because the allegations can be proved or disproved largely through documents, the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses is significantly lower compared to cases based purely on oral testimony.
2. Petitioner’s Counter-Complaint: The fact that petitioner No. 1 had already initiated criminal proceedings against the co-accused (Accused No. 2) provided weight to their claim of being falsely implicated or being victims of the co-accused’s actions.
3. Nature of Offence: The offences under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, a factor traditionally considered favorably for bail applications.
4. No Flight Risk: The petitioners, being senior citizens with deep roots and a permanent residence in Bengaluru, were deemed to have no likelihood of fleeing from the judicial process.

The court thus held that while the role of the petitioners (Accused No. 1 and 3) needs to be fully investigated, the need for investigation alone cannot be the sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail, especially given the documentary nature of the evidence.

Bail Conditions Imposed

In granting the anticipatory bail, the court imposed strict conditions to ensure the petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation and the judicial process:

1. Bail Bond: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 2,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum.
2. Cooperation: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 30 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation whenever called upon.
3. Attendance: They shall mark their attendance before the Kengeri Police Station once a week (specifically on the 2nd Saturday of every month) until the charge sheet is filed or for a period of six months, whichever is earlier.
4. No Tampering: They are prohibited from threatening the complainant or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
5. Future Conduct: The petitioners must not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
6. Court Appearance: They must appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.

The court explicitly warned that failure to comply with any of these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order. The order ensures that the petitioners receive protection from arrest while simultaneously guaranteeing their availability for the ongoing investigation.