In a notable judicial order passed on April 5, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., 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. 2973/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Krishna (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 603/2023 registered by the Hulimavu (CCB) (EOW) Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Fraud Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by a homeowner regarding the fraudulent sale and mortgage of her property. In 2018, the complainant had engaged real estate brokers to sell her residential property (Property No. 452, 17th Cross, 36th Main, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru).
In July 2023, Accused No. 4 (Manjunath) contacted the complainant’s daughter, stating that a prospective buyer named Bhaskar Krishna was interested in purchasing the property. Subsequently, Manjunath, Bhaskar Krishna, and Mahesh visited the house, paid a token advance of ₹10,000, and collected copies of the title deeds for legal verification.
Shortly thereafter, another associate (Arun) informed the complainant’s daughter that officials from SBI and ICICI Bank would inspect the premises to process a housing loan application. Bank officials subsequently conducted a physical site inspection. However, after a few days, Bhaskar Krishna informed the family that his loan application had been rejected and he was withdrawing from the purchase.
The fraud came to light when Central Crime Branch (CCB) officers questioned the complainant about an account in her name at ICICI Co-operative Bank / BDCC Co-operative Bank, Hoskote. After her grandson inquired at the bank branch on September 6, 2023, the family discovered that a fraudulent bank account had been opened in her name, into which ₹1,50,000,000 (₹1.5 Crore) had been transferred from SBI, St. Marks Road Branch, Bengaluru.
Further investigation revealed that an individual named Prashanth had purportedly “purchased” the complainant’s property by obtaining a housing loan from SBI RACPC, St. Marks Road Branch, using forged title documents and impersonation, without the true owner’s knowledge or consent. Upon receiving the complaint, the police registered Crime No. 603/2023, and the case was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the CCB.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Krishna (Accused No. 1): Aged about 45 years, son of Gopalakrishna, residing at No. 207, 6th Main, Bikasipura, Bengaluru – 560078.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri G.N.K. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- Innocence and Lack of Name in Initial FIR: The defence submitted that the petitioner was innocent, was not named in the initial FIR or complaint, and was subsequently implicated without specific overt acts being attributed to him.
- Main Case Bail and Body Warrant Context: Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had already been granted bail in the main connected matter (Crime No. 384/2023 of Puttenahalli CCB Police) and that an earlier application (Crl.Misc. No. 808/2024) was withdrawn on procedural grounds.
- Ground of Parity: Attention was drawn to the fact that co-accused persons, including Accused No. 6 (the Bank Manager of SBI, St. Marks Road Branch), had already been enlarged on bail by the court in Crl.Misc. No. 423/2024.
- Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and undertook to cooperate fully with the EOW investigation.
Prosecution Objections
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that:
- High-Value Economic Offence: The fraud involved a substantial sum exceeding ₹1.5 Crore, involving forged property documents, fake bank accounts, and fraudulent bank loan disbursements.
- Prima Facie Involvement: The complainant’s statements established that the petitioner visited her residence, paid advance money, and obtained property title documents under the guise of purchasing the house.
- Ongoing CCB Investigation: The prosecution expressed serious concern that releasing the main suspect on pre-arrest bail during an active EOW investigation would lead to witness tampering, destruction of financial evidence, or absconding.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, CCB investigation records, cross-complaints, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.
1. Parity and Parallel Investigation Findings
Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that Accused No. 6 (the Bank Manager of SBI, St. Marks Road) had already been granted bail in Crl.Misc. No. 423/2024. Furthermore, the court noted that SBI had filed a separate cross-complaint in Crime No. 5/2024 against both the buyer and seller, which was also under active investigation. Given that co-accused were out on bail and parallel investigations were underway, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.
2. Nature of Penalties and Trial Evaluation
The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 IPC do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment. The court held that the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, as well as the exact nature of his participation in the impersonation racket, must be established during trial rather than through pre-trial incarceration.
3. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty
Holding that the petitioner is a local resident of Bengaluru and that the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding trial attendance and evidence protection could be satisfied by imposing strict conditions—including heavy monetary bonds and mandatory reporting—the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.
It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.
Final Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and issued the following order:
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent Hulimavu (CCB) (EOW) Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 603/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 417 read with Section 34 IPC, on execution of a personal bond for ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer whenever he is called upon for the purpose of investigation.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
- The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity.
- The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.