The LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Hardik Gowda, the primary accused in a significant property fraud case involving allegations of impersonation, forgery, and the illegal transfer of Development Rights Certificate (DRC) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The order, delivered by Judge Sri B.G. Pramoda, provides a major legal reprieve for the 38-year-old resident of Indiranagar, who was facing imminent arrest by the Yelahanka New Town Police.

The case, registered under Crime No. 142/2024, involves several serious sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 465 (punishment for forgery), Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), all read with Section 34.

The prosecution’s case is built upon a complaint filed by Ramesh C. Jigajanagi. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the dispute centers around a substantial parcel of land measuring 8 acres and 16 guntas located in Shamarajapura village. This land was reportedly acquired for road widening purposes, making it eligible for Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The informant alleged that he had executed an unregistered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of a friend named Prakash solely to manage the DRC process with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

However, after Prakash’s death due to Covid-19, the informant discovered through BBMP public notices that his property rights had been manipulated. The complaint alleges that Hardik Gowda and other accomplices created forged documents, including a fake GPA and a sale agreement dated June 24, 2014. These documents were allegedly executed by a third party impersonating the informant at the Ganganagar Sub-Registrar office. Using these forged instruments, the accused allegedly obtained DRC certificates and transferred rights to a private company and subsequently to a bank, effectively cheating the original owner of his property interests.

Opposing the bail petition, the Public Prosecutor argued that the crimes committed were grave in nature and detrimental to society. The prosecution highlighted that the investigation was in its preliminary stages and expressed fears that if Hardik Gowda were released, he might abscond, destroy vital documentary evidence, or threaten witnesses. The state emphasized that custodial interrogation was necessary given the complex nature of the forgery.

Representing Hardik Gowda, advocate Sri V. Srinivas argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. A key point of the defense was the significant delay in filing the complaint, which the defense suggested pointed toward a motivated litigation. Furthermore, the defense presented evidence to the court showing that Hardik Gowda had already transferred a sum of Rs. 49,00,000 to the informant through official bank channels, arguing that this financial transaction contradicted the narrative of a fraudulent takeover.

In the judicial analysis, Judge B.G. Pramoda noted that while the allegations were serious, the offences were not exclusively punishable by death or life imprisonment and were triable by a Magistrate. The court observed that the case relies heavily on documentary evidence, much of which is already in the possession of the authorities or public offices, thereby reducing the necessity for custodial interrogation.

The court further noted that the validity of the documents and the intent to cheat are matters that must be adjudicated during a full-fledged trial. Given that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and a sole breadwinner, the court found that his presence during the investigation could be secured through strict conditions rather than incarceration.

The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, ordering that in the event of arrest, Hardik Gowda must be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of a like sum. The court imposed several stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The petitioner is required to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks of the order and must cooperate fully with the probe. He is prohibited from leaving the country without prior judicial permission and is strictly warned against threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court concluded that any violation of these terms would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail.

Would you like me to summarize the specific legal conditions imposed by the court for your records?