In a significant judicial order delivered on January 27, 2023, the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), Sri S. Nataraj, B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 122 of 2023. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to senior citizen Umashankar S. and B. Narayanappa in connection with a complaint filed by Smt. D.V. Nithya, pending preliminary inquiry for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Allegations

The dispute stems from transactions involving immovable property. According to the petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 (Umashankar S.) had purchased the subject property from one Jayaprakash, paying the full sale consideration, and obtained a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed on April 29, 2019. Subsequently, Petitioner No. 1 executed a sale deed in favor of the complainant, Smt. D.V. Nithya, and her associates (N. Ganeshan and Periyaswamy), handing over the original property documents.

The petitioners submitted that during the pendency of an active civil suit concerning the property in O.S. No. 343/2019, the complainant executed a sale deed in favor of her husband, Periyaswamy, on October 20, 2022, without informing the petitioners.

Thereafter, Smt. D.V. Nithya lodged a written criminal complaint against Petitioner No. 1 before the Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Section, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu (Respondent No. 2). The petitioners alleged that police officials were demanding a payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- under threat of registering an FIR and arresting them. Facing imminent threat of arrest, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court in Bengaluru for anticipatory bail.

The cause title captures the personal details of the petitioners:

• Umashankar S. (Petitioner No. 1): Aged 62 years (senior citizen suffering from illness), son of Shiva Gangappa, residing at Door No. 10/4, 8th Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
• B. Narayanappa (Petitioner No. 2): Aged 59 years, son of late Byrappa, residing at No. 2506, 6th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Sri S. Narasimha presented the following grounds seeking pre-arrest protection:

• Civil Nature of Dispute: The transaction pertained strictly to immovable property, supported by registered conveyances and an ongoing civil suit (O.S. No. 343/2019). No criminal intent or forgery existed.
• Interstate Jurisdiction and Threat of Arrest: Although the complaint was lodged before the Tamil Nadu police at Krishnagiri, the petitioners reside in Bengaluru and faced an immediate apprehension of arrest at their place of residence.
• Lack of Involvement and Senior Status: Petitioner No. 1 is a senior citizen suffering from health issues, while Petitioner No. 2 had no direct connection to the property transaction.
• Non-Capital Offences: The alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The petitioners undertook to cooperate with inquiry and abide by court-imposed conditions.

Prosecution Objections and Submissions

• Respondent No. 1 (KP Agrahara PS, Bengaluru): The Public Prosecutor submitted that no case was registered at KP Agrahara PS; the local station was arrayed as a party solely because the petitioners reside within its territorial limits.
• Respondent No. 2 (Land Grabbing Section, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu): Appearing through objections, Respondent No. 2 confirmed receiving Smt. D.V. Nithya’s complaint, stating that preliminary investigation was underway, and argued that if granted bail, the petitioners might abscond.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the record, jurisdictional principles, and Supreme Court guidelines to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Inter-State Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction

Addressing whether a Bengaluru court could entertain a pre-arrest bail petition when the complaint was submitted in Tamil Nadu, Judge S. Nataraj relied on landmark High Court precedents:

• Jodhram v. State of Rajasthan (1994 Crl.L.J. 1962): The Rajasthan High Court held that courts where an offender apprehends arrest possess territorial jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., irrespective of where the alleged offence occurred.
• Captain Satish Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Administration (1991 Crl.L.J. 950): The Delhi High Court ruled that because arrest constitutes a direct threat to personal liberty, anticipatory bail lies both where the offence is investigated and where the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest.

The court held that as Bengaluru residents facing apprehension of arrest within Bengaluru, the petitioners’ application was fully maintainable.

2. Violation of Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Guidelines in Lalita Kumari

The court examined the official report of Respondent No. 2, which admitted that the complaint was kept pending for “preliminary enquiry” without registering an FIR.

Referring to the binding Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [(2008) 14 SCC 337 / (2014) 2 SCC 1], the court highlighted that:

• Preliminary inquiries in permissible commercial/property dispute categories must be strictly time-bound and shall not exceed 7 days.
• Keeping a complaint pending indefinitely beyond 7 days without registering an FIR or closing the matter violates mandatory Apex Court directions.

The court noted that Respondent No. 2 kept the complaint pending for preliminary enquiry past the mandatory 7-day limit, reinforcing the legitimacy of the petitioners’ apprehension of arbitrary arrest.

3. Nature of Allegations and Custodial Interrogation

The court observed that the dispute centered on land ownership and registered deeds currently subject to civil litigation. The offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC are non-bailable but do not carry life imprisonment or death penalties. Given the civil undertones, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

It remains a settled principle of law that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is purely a procedural protection and does not amount to a final determination of the accused persons’ guilt or innocence, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri S. Nataraj allowed the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by petitioners Umashankar S. and B. Narayanappa under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest on the complaint of Smt. D.V. Nithya under Sections 420 and 506 IPC likely to be registered by the Respondent No. 2 police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the 2nd respondent police for the purpose of enquiry/preliminary enquiry on the complaint of Smt. D.V. Nithya likely to be registered for offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC on or before February 6, 2023, between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten the complainant or witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case on the complaint of Smt. D.V. Nithya, if registered.
4. This anticipatory bail order shall remain in force for a period of 2 months from this day.