The LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Jayakumar V, a 37-year-old resident of Electronic City, in connection with an alleged real estate cheating case registered at the HSR Layout Police Station. The order, passed by Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R., provides legal protection to the accused while the investigation into the alleged fraudulent sale of residential sites continues.
Background of the Allegations
The case against Jayakumar V, also known as Appu, and his associate Moin Patel, was initiated following a complaint lodged by Smt. Vijayalakshmi. According to the prosecution, the complainant and her husband visited the office of “JR Properties” located in HSR Layout Sector 4 in January 2022. The firm had reportedly advertised residential sites at a discounted price of Rs. 12,00,000 and promised to facilitate bank loans for prospective buyers.
The complainant alleged that between January 9, 2022, and January 28, 2022, she transferred a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000 to the accused through various channels, including Paytm, PhonePe, cash, and cheques. However, after receiving the funds, the firm allegedly failed to arrange the promised loan or register the site. When confronted at their office, the petitioners reportedly refused to provide the site or refund the money, scolding the complainant in “filthy language” and issuing threats. Consequently, the HSR Layout police registered Crime No. 113/2022 under Sections 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional Insult), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Defense Arguments and Identity Dispute
Appearing for Jayakumar V, the defense counsel argued that the complaint was false, frivolous, and filed with the sole intent of implicating the petitioner due to personal vengeance. A significant point of contention raised by the defense was the ownership of “JR Properties.”
The petitioner produced a registration certificate for the firm showing that the proprietor is actually an individual named Vinod Kumar, not Jayakumar V. The defense contended that the petitioner has no formal connection to the business operations of JR Properties and was wrongly named in the FIR. The counsel further stated that Jayakumar is a law-abiding citizen ready to cooperate with the police investigation, thus justifying the need for anticipatory bail.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is in its early stages and crucial documents and witness statements are yet to be collected. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his associates had cheated several members of the public by collecting large sums of money under the pretext of providing affordable sites and then vanishing with the funds. The state expressed concern that if released on bail, the petitioner might threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, or abscond to evade trial.
The Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Upon reviewing the submissions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. noted the discrepancy regarding the ownership of JR Properties. The court observed that while the complainant made specific allegations of money collection against the petitioner, the documents produced by the defense showed another individual as the proprietor. This conflict, the court noted, requires a thorough investigation to determine who actually received the funds.
The court further highlighted that the offenses alleged—cheating and criminal intimidation—are not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Judge Hemanth Kumar remarked that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his presence can be secured for trial through appropriate conditions.
“The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners might threaten witnesses or abscond can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions,” the court stated. The judge emphasized that the guilt of the petitioner is a matter for trial, and until then, his liberty should be protected provided he complies with the investigation.
Conditions of the Anticipatory Bail
The court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., directing the HSR Layout police to release Jayakumar V on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties for the like sum. The following conditions were imposed to ensure the integrity of the legal process:
- The petitioner must appear before the court on all hearing dates and cooperate fully with the investigation.
- He must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned.
- He is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or inducing/threatening prosecution witnesses.
- He must not involve himself in any further criminal activities.
- He is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.
This ruling underscores the court’s effort to balance the protection of individual liberty with the necessity of a fair and thorough investigation into financial fraud allegations.