The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH–67), on August 30, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Bharathi B.R. and Prasad Kumar T., in connection with a major case of alleged land fraud, impersonation, and forgery. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sri. Prakash T Hebbar, were seeking protection from arrest in Cr. No. 269/2023 registered by the Sampigehalli Police Station for a multitude of offences under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 463 (Forgery), 420 (Cheating), 419 (Cheating by Personation), 447 (Criminal Trespass), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The case revolves around a disputed sale deed executed on July 7, 2023, involving a valuable parcel of agricultural land measuring 1 Acre 21 Guntas in Sy. No. 110/3 (re-survey No. 110/2011) of Kogilu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. The land, allegedly owned by the complainant, Smt. Shashikala N., was purportedly sold to the petitioners, Bharathi B.R. and Prasad Kumar T., for a massive consideration of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- (Three Crores Ninety-Six Lakh Rupees).

The Prosecution’s Allegations: Forgery and Impersonation

The genesis of the complaint, filed on August 1, 2023, is the allegation that the petitioners, along with five other co-accused, conspired to illegally acquire the land. The complainant, Smt. Shashikala N., asserted that the accused set up an impersonator using a specific Aadhaar number (841338021072) to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The alleged sale was completed despite the fact that the actual seller had no right or interest in the property. Following the registration of the forged sale deed, the revenue records (katha) were also reportedly transferred into the names of the petitioners, and illegal trespass on the property occurred. The prosecution, led by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was pending, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was essential to seize documents and uncover the full extent of the criminal conspiracy. It was feared that granting bail would allow the accused to tamper with evidence.

The Petitioners’ Defense: Claiming Bonafide Purchase and Victim Status

The petitioners countered the charges by claiming they were bonafide purchasers who had acquired the land for valuable consideration. They maintained their innocence, stating they had no knowledge of any impersonation or conspiracy. Their counsel argued that the petitioners had taken due diligence by verifying the title documents and identifying the seller through the Aadhaar card presented at the time of registration. They positioned themselves as victims of the fraud, having paid a substantial sum for a property now under dispute. The defense emphasized that the offences alleged were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, making them triable by a Magistrate, and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, especially Petitioner No. 1, being a woman, was not required given that the entire case was largely documentary, based on records available with the Sub Registrar and other authorities.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Legal Principles

Justice S. Nataraj, presiding over the case, carefully considered the opposing arguments and the nature of the accusation. A pivotal point in the court’s assessment was the distinction between the roles of the accused. The core allegation of cheating and impersonation was primarily levelled against “Accused No. 1” (referring to the original conspirator/impersonator who executed the deed, not the first petitioner Bharathi B.R., though the petitioners were named Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition) and other co-accused, while the petitioners were the alleged purchasers.

The court observed that the petitioners’ claim of being victims who paid a huge amount needed proper investigation to determine if they acted with knowledge of the impersonation or were genuinely deceived. However, considering the documentary nature of the evidence, the court concluded that the police could carry out the necessary investigation, including the seizure of documents, without the need for the petitioners’ custody. The court further noted that the petitioners had undertaken to fully cooperate with the investigation and abide by any terms and conditions imposed.

Crucially, the court relied on the established principles for granting anticipatory bail, citing landmark judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Sushila Aggarwal and others vs State (NCT) of Delhi and others (2020) and Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI (2022). Applying these guidelines, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence alongside the specific accusation levelled against the purchasers, the Judge ruled that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest protection.

Conditions of Bail

Consequently, the court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Bharathi B.R. and Prasad Kumar T. on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. Each petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety for the like sum, subject to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

The order imposed stringent conditions to ensure their cooperation and prevent interference with the case:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer (IO) on or before September 8, 2023, and thereafter as and when called upon for investigation.
2. They shall mark their attendance before the IO once every 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., until the filing of the charge sheet.
3. They shall not directly or indirectly threaten, induce, or promise any witness acquainted with the facts of the case.
4. They shall regularly appear before the concerned court as and when called for.

The court explicitly stated that any violation of these conditions would grant the prosecution the liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail. This judgment provides temporary relief to the purchasers while allowing the police investigation into the high-profile land fraud and impersonation allegations to proceed.