The Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to two individuals, Karthik S.R. and Mallappa M., who were arrayed as Accused No. 9 and 10 in a significant cheating and criminal conspiracy case involving the sale of BDA sites. The order was delivered by Sri. B.G. Pramoda, the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who observed that the primary allegations involved other accused parties and that the custodial interrogation of these two petitioners was not essential for the progress of the investigation.

The case, registered under Crime No. 168/2022 by the Konanakunte Police Station, involves allegations of a large-scale real estate fraud. The FIR was filed following a complaint by one Ramu A.C., who alleged that he was cheated of over one crore rupees under the pretext of purchasing sites purportedly allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

Details of the BDA Site Allotment Fraud Allegations

According to the information provided to the court, the complainant, Ramu A.C., was approached in 2019 by a group of individuals (identified as Accused No. 11 to 14). They allegedly informed him that Accused No. 1 to 7 and 15 were looking to sell sites that had been granted to them by the BDA. Trusting these representations, the informant entered into a purchase agreement and paid a sum of Rs. 54,50,000 as an advance consideration to the primary group of accused.

The fraud allegedly deepened in September 2022, when the accused informed the complainant that four specific sites had been officially allotted. They reportedly induced him to pay an additional Rs. 75,64,600, claiming the funds were required for the issuance of allotment letters and other administrative fees. In total, the complainant claimed to have lost more than Rs. 1.3 crore without receiving any property or a refund of his money.

Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

Karthik S.R. and Mallappa M. moved the court seeking protection from arrest, contending that they were falsely implicated in the crime. Their legal counsel, Sri. H.C. Nataraj, argued that the primary allegations and the receipt of money were directed at Accused No. 1 to 7 and 15. He emphasized that the petitioners had not received any financial benefit from the informant and were merely being dragged into the case under the umbrella of a “criminal conspiracy.”

The defense further highlighted that both petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru and the sole breadwinners of their families. They expressed a reasonable apprehension of arrest and humiliation if taken into custody, while simultaneously pledging full cooperation with the Konanakunte police.

Opposition by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, characterizing the scam as a grave offense against society. The state argued that the petitioners were part of a coordinated criminal conspiracy to defraud an innocent citizen of a substantial amount of money. The prosecution expressed fears that if granted bail, the accused might abscond, threaten the informant, or attempt to destroy documentary evidence, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation.

The Court’s Ruling and Reasoning

Judge B.G. Pramoda, after examining the FIR and the police reports, noted that the main thrust of the financial allegations was indeed against the other co-accused. The court observed that the charges against Karthik S.R. and Mallappa M. were secondary in nature and would require a full-fledged trial to determine their actual involvement in the conspiracy.

The court further noted that the offenses alleged—Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), and 417 (Punishment for Cheating) of the IPC—are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case, the judge remarked that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the case largely relied on documentary evidence.

Conditions for Release

The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of their arrest, Karthik S.R. and Mallappa M. should be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety for the like sum. To ensure a smooth investigation, the court imposed the following conditions:

The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within three weeks to provide necessary documents and information.

They must continue to appear before the police as and when summoned and cooperate fully with the probe.

They are strictly prohibited from inducing, threatening, or promising anything to witnesses to dissuade them from testifying.

They must not commit any similar offenses or leave the country without prior permission from the court.

They must provide correct address proof to the trial court and must not attempt to destroy evidence.

The court concluded that any violation of these specific conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of their bail.