The LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to M. Ramesh, alias Ramu, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in a high-stakes real estate cheating case. The case, registered by the Parappana Agrahara Police, involves allegations of defrauding a homebuyer to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs under the guise of selling residential plots in HSR Layout.

Background of the Case

The criminal proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by Kovi Damodar Naidu. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the complainant was approached by a broker named Apparao, who directed him to M/s Navayuga Properties. At the company’s office in HSR Layout, Naidu was introduced to Raviteja (Accused No. 2).

Raviteja allegedly convinced the complainant to make a full upfront payment to secure a “market discount” for four residential plots (bearing Nos. 41, 42, 52, and 53) in Beretana Agrahara village. Trusting the representations made by the firm, Naidu issued three cheques for Rs. 20 lakhs each, totaling Rs. 60 lakhs, in January 2020.

Shutterstock

Despite receiving the full payment and issuing a handwritten receipt, the firm failed to provide any registered documents. When the complainant demanded his money back, Raviteja claimed he had left the company and directed Naidu to the owner, Mr. Navin (Accused No. 1), and an employee named Ramu (the petitioner, Accused No. 4). While a refund commitment letter was issued in February 2021, the money was never returned. Investigations later revealed that the funds had been credited to the account of Accused No. 3, Gayathri Bai.

Arguments in Court

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunatha V, argued that M. Ramesh was merely an “office boy” in the company and had no decision-making power or active role in the alleged crime. The defense contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the complainant should have approached a civil court rather than filing a criminal case. It was further argued that Ramesh is a permanent resident of Raichur/Bengaluru and poses no flight risk.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, asserting that Ramesh was an integral part of the fraudulent scheme. The state expressed concerns that if granted bail, the accused might abscond, intimidate witnesses, or destroy evidence related to the financial transactions of Navayuga Properties.

The Court’s Reasoning

Presiding Judge Sri Sadananda Nagappa Naik evaluated the petition based on the severity of the offense and the likelihood of the accused cooperating with the trial. The court noted that while the offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), and 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker) are serious and non-bailable, they do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The judge observed that the primary allegations and transactions appeared to involve Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Given that the petitioner has a permanent residence and the investigation is ongoing, the court concluded that his liberty could be protected under specific conditions. The court emphasized that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding witness tampering could be addressed through a strict “attendance” mandate at the police station.

Terms of the Anticipatory Bail

The court allowed the petition and directed the Investigating Officer to release M. Ramesh on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:

1. Personal Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Attendance: He must mark his attendance at the Parappana Agrahara Police Station on the 1st of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for three months or until the charge sheet is filed.
3. Address Proof: He must provide documented proof of his residential address and that of his sureties.
4. Witness Protection: He is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses.
5. Jurisdictional Limits: He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
6. Mandatory Appearance: He must appear before the trial court on all scheduled hearing dates without fail.

The court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the automatic cancellation of the bail. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach to balancing the rights of an individual against the state’s need for investigation, particularly in commercial disputes that bleed into criminal allegations.