In a notable judicial order passed on April 3, 2024, the LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.68), Sri Kashim Churikhan, B.A., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2980/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Kiran Bariker (Accused No. 1) and Irfan Nagnoor (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 108/2024 registered by the HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 39th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.
Case Background and Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the HSR Layout Police Station by the operator of “Techno Hangout Club” in Bengaluru. According to the informant, his mutual friend Pratheek introduced the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) to him.
The parties entered into an operational arrangement under which the accused agreed to run the club, pay monthly rent directly to the building owner, and share 20% of the net income generated from the club operations with the informant.
The informant alleged that the accused failed to pay the agreed monthly rent to the property owner for four consecutive months, accumulating rental arrears amounting to ₹11,00,000/- (₹11 Lakhs). Consequently, the building owner deducted the accrued rental arrears directly from the security advance deposit deposited earlier by the informant. The informant further alleged that despite repeated extensions of time, the accused failed to reimburse the outstanding amount and defaulted on the income-sharing agreement, thereby committing criminal breach and cheating. Following the complaint, HSR Layout Police registered Crime No. 108/2024 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
The details of the petitioners as per court records are:
- Kiran Bariker (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 35 years, son of L.B. Bariker, residing at No. 2354, 23rd ‘A’ Cross, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru – 560092. (Note: The court order text refers to Petitioner No. 1 as a senior citizen in the reasoning section, while the cause title lists his age as 35).
- Irfan Nagnoor (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 34 years, son of Dr. Ibrahim Nagnoor, residing at No. 401, Majestic Residency, Tavarekere Main Road, Bengaluru South – 560029.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners
Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri T.A. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- Civil Nature of Contractual Dispute: The defence submitted that the dispute arose out of a commercial lease/operating agreement for the hospitality business. It was argued that the informant had given a criminal color to a commercial breach of contract for which a civil suit was already pending.
- Scope of Operational Agreement: The petitioners contended that their operating agreement with the informant was valid for only two months, whereas the informant claimed rent deductions covering four months. Furthermore, they pointed out that they were not direct parties to the underlying tenancy agreement between the informant and the property owner.
- Hospitality Background and Roots: Both petitioners have been providing hospitality and entertainment management services in Bengaluru for over 30 years, hold fixed residential abodes in Bengaluru, and have no prior criminal antecedents.
- Non-Capital Offences: The offence alleged under Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
- Undertaking: The applicants promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation, submit to all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.
Objections Raised by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections:
- Prima Facie Material: The prosecution submitted that case records and undisputed business transactions established that the accused took control of the club premises, generated revenue, and deliberately defaulted on rental obligations amounting to ₹11 Lakhs, causing direct financial loss to the informant.
- Ongoing Investigation and Alleged Abscondance: The prosecution argued that the investigation was in its preliminary stages, that the petitioners had avoided police inquiries since the registration of the FIR, and that granting pre-arrest protection might lead to witness tampering, destruction of lease records, or flight from justice.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, operating agreement details, civil litigation background, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.
1. Civil Dispute and Contractual Execution
Judge Kashim Churikhan observed that the core controversy stemmed from an operational lease agreement concerning the running of “Techno Hangout Club” and unpaid rental accruals. The court noted that commercial disagreements over lease terms and security deposit deductions must be established during trial and through proper civil adjudication rather than pre-trial incarceration.
2. Status of Investigation and Non-Capital Penalties
The court emphasized that the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC does not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment and is triable by a Magistrate. Holding that the primary criteria for bail evaluations are securing the presence of the accused for investigation and trial, the court found that custodial interrogation was not required to establish the terms of the business agreement.
3. Apprehension of Arrest and Conditional Protection
Recognizing that the registration of a cognizable FIR created a well-founded apprehension of arrest in a commercial dispute, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding witness intimidation or non-cooperation could be adequately safeguarded by imposing strict conditions—including mandatory reporting to the Investigating Officer.
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 petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 108/2024 of HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, on executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each along with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
- The petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- The petitioners shall not indulge in committing any offences.