BENGALURU: In a significant development, the LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru, Smt. Kalpana M.S., granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons, B.Venkatesh Naidu (Accused No. 1) and Sunil Kumar Singh (Accused No. 5), involved in a real estate fraud case. The bail was granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Cr.No.386/2023 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, which deals with alleged offenses under Sections 420, 468, 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
The order, pronounced on September 2, 2023, concludes the proceedings of Crl.Misc.No.8296/2023, which was presented and registered on August 24, 2023. The entire process was concluded in a duration of nine days.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a complaint filed with the Parappana Agrahara Police Station. As per the F.I.R. and the complaint, the petitioners, along with others, were allegedly engaged in the real estate business under the name and style of “Navayuga Properties Pvt. Ltd.” The complainants were allegedly induced to invest their hard-earned money and subsequently booked sites in Phase-I and Phase-II projects of the company. The accused reportedly executed Sale Deeds and received valuable consideration.
However, the complaint alleges that the complainants later discovered fraudulent activity, specifically noting that “Accused No. 2 has signed the sale deed in the name of Nagarajashetty – land owner and thereby all the accused persons cheated the complainant.” This led to the registration of the case under sections relating to cheating (420), forgery for the purpose of cheating (468), making a false document (464), and common intention (34) of the I.P.C.
Petitioners’ Submissions and Court’s Rationale
Appearing for the petitioners, the counsel, Sri. Sathish Kumar, vehemently argued that Accused No. 1, B.Venkatesh Naidu, and Accused No. 5, Sunil Kumar Singh, were innocent and had been falsely implicated. The defence highlighted the absence of specific allegations against Petitioner No. 2 (Sunil Kumar Singh) and asserted that Petitioner No. 1 was not involved in the case. A central contention of the defence was that the dispute was “purely civil in nature,” and criminal proceedings were being initiated to exert pressure. The petitioners assured the court of their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed, citing a serious apprehension of arrest.
The Learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Karnataka, filed an objection statement along with the Investigating Officer’s report, opposing the bail petition.
In its detailed reasoning, the court first noted that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and are neither punishable with death penalty nor imprisonment for life. The court placed significant reliance on the legal doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur V/s. Balachandh @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447), stating that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” This doctrine is rooted in safeguarding the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Crucially, the court addressed the necessity of custodial interrogation. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahdoom Bava V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1570), the court observed that in cases primarily based on documentary evidence, “custodial interrogation is not warranted.” The precedent states that when a case is primarily based on documentary evidence, the arrest of the accused is generally not warranted.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged the petitioners’ argument, noting that “It is forthcoming from the records that, the dispute is civil in nature.” The court also took into account the absence of any report of criminal antecedents against the petitioners and their permanent residence in Bengaluru, which minimizes the “chances of flee from justice.”
The Judge concluded that to “struck the balance between individual liberty and humiliation due to unjustifiable detention against free and fair trial as well as welfare of society,” it was proper to grant pre-arrest bail, subject to imposing appropriate terms and conditions. Consequently, Point No. 1, concerning the petitioners’ entitlement to anticipatory bail, was answered in the Affirmative.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
The court directed the respondent police to release B.Venkatesh Naidu (Accused No. 1) and Sunil Kumar Singh (Accused No. 5) on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.386/2023. The bail is subject to each petitioner furnishing a personal bond for ₹.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties for the like sum.
The following stringent conditions were also imposed by the court:
- Cooperation: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of the order and make themselves available as and when called.
- Documentation: They must furnish address proof documents, along with the address proof and Aadhar card copies of their sureties, at the time of furnishing the bonds.
- Police Attendance: They are required to mark their attendance at the Parappana Agrahara Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., either until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
- No Tampering: They must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Investigation Officer or the trial court.
- Travel Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without the prior permission of the trial court.
- Conduct: They shall not involve themselves in any other criminal activities.
- Address Change: Any change in residential address must be immediately intimated to the trial court by the petitioners and their sureties.
The order explicitly states that “Violation of any of these conditions would entitle cancellation of bail.” The criminal miscellaneous proceedings were consequently disposed of.