In a notable judicial order passed on April 15, 2024, the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.68), Sri Kashim Churikhan, B.A., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2886/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Honnakrishna @ Putta in connection with Crime No. 34/2024 registered by the Gangammanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 31st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.
Factual Matrix and Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a report lodged by the informant at the Gangammanagudi Police Station. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner—who operates as a second-hand automobile dealer—approached the informant offering to facilitate the sale of his Maruti car bearing registration number KA-51/P-0562.
On February 13, 2023, the petitioner took custody of the original vehicle documents along with the informant’s signatures on Form No. 29 and Form No. 30 (RTO transfer forms). The informant alleged that although the petitioner subsequently sold the car to a third party, he neither remitted the sale proceeds nor returned the vehicle. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that whenever he demanded payment or the return of his automobile, the petitioner verbally abused him using filthy language and issued life threats targeting him and his family members.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Honnakrishna @ Putta: Aged 39 years, son of N.S. Dharaniyappa, residing at No. 101, 1st Floor, 2nd Main Road, Kirloskar Layout, Nagasandra, Bengaluru – 560073 (also residing at Cheluru, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru – 572117).
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri D.S.S. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- Inordinate Delay in Lodging Complaint: The defence highlighted an unexplained delay of over one year in filing the police complaint (the transaction took place in February 2023, whereas the FIR was registered in 2024).
- Commercial Dispute Given Criminal Color: It was submitted that the informant had already received payments and filed false criminal charges merely to extract additional money from the petitioner.
- Absence of Need for Custodial Interrogation: Given the nature of the transaction and documentary evidence involving vehicle sale forms, custodial interrogation was not required.
- Non-Capital Offences and Parity: The offences alleged under Sections 420, 504, and 506 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. Attention was also drawn to the fact that co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail by the trial court.
- Undertaking: The petitioner promised to abide by all conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties for his regular appearance.
Objections Raised by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that:
- Ongoing Investigation and Prima Facie Material: The investigation was incomplete, and there were prima facie materials showing that the petitioner cheated the informant by selling his car without remitting the funds.
- Apprehension of Absconding and Interference: The prosecution argued that the petitioner had been absconding since the registration of the case, and that granting pre-arrest protection would lead to witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or evasion of trial.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, case records, delay in reporting, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.
1. Delay in FIR and Evaluation of Allegations
Judge Kashim Churikhan noted the submission regarding the one-year delay in lodging the complaint. The court observed that the core dispute—whether the car dealer failed to remit sale proceeds—is a matter to be established through authenticated witness testimony during a full-fledged trial.
2. Nature of Offences and Precedent on Bail
The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 420, 504, and 506 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract punishment of death or life imprisonment. Noting that co-accused connected to the transaction were already out on bail, the court held that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest by the police was well-founded and warranted similar relief.
3. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty
Holding that the prosecution’s concerns regarding non-cooperation or witness tampering could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions—including mandatory appearance before the Investigating Officer within 15 days—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 in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.
Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Kashim Churikhan allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 34/2024 of Gangammanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, on executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and assist him in investigation as and when required.
- The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in committing any offences.