In a notable judicial order passed on March 27, 2024, the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2807/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to K.C. Nanda Kumar (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 61/2024 registered by the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Sri Koushik A. Makam. According to the prosecution case, property bearing Site No. 576 situated at KCHC Layout was originally purchased by the complainant’s grandmother. Accused No. 1 is the uncle of the complainant, and Accused No. 2 is Accused No. 1’s son.

The complainant alleged that following the death of his grandmother in the year 2002, attempts were made to sell the property around 2014–15, but Accused No. 1 refused due to dissatisfaction with the offered price. On December 1, 2023, when the complainant visited the site, he discovered an ongoing construction of a three-storied building.

When questioned, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 initially agreed to partition the property among family members. However, they subsequently insulted the complainant, claimed exclusive ownership based on property title deeds, and threatened his life. Upon making inquiries at the land registry, the complainant discovered that Accused No. 1 had allegedly forged a Will deed dated April 4, 2000, purportedly executed by his deceased grandmother, and got it registered on September 16, 2019, at the Sub-Registrar Office, Jayanagar, in collusion with other accused persons. The petitioner, K.C. Nanda Kumar, was implicated as an attesting witness to the disputed Will deed and arrayed as Accused No. 4.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• K.C. Nanda Kumar (Petitioner / Accused No. 4): Aged 55 years, son of K.V. Chalapathy, permanently residing at #451, 11th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560080.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Mahesh Raj presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Attestation Role: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged forgery and cheating. He was merely an attesting witness to the Will deed and had no financial or personal stake in the property transaction.
• Civil Remedy Framework: The defence submitted that the core dispute regarding ancestral property partition and validity of the Will deed was civil in nature, for which civil court remedies were available.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 504, and 506 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Arnesh Kumar Guidelines: The petitioner expressed a well-founded fear of arbitrary arrest and harassment without proper preliminary inquiry.
• Undertaking: The petitioner 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 along with the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Ongoing Fraud Investigation: The prosecution contended that the accused created forged title documents to deprive the complainant of his legitimate inheritance and unlawfully constructed a building on the property.
• Apprehension of Non-Cooperation and Evidence Tampering: Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation might lead to destruction of documentary evidence, intimidation of prosecution witnesses, or non-appearance during trial.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, property registry details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Attesting Witness Status and Documentary Evidence

Judge B.G. Pramoda observed that the petitioner was arrayed solely as an attesting witness to the registered Will deed dated April 4, 2000. The court noted that the investigation relies primarily on documentary evidence available with the registration authorities, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

2. Civil Forum Availability and Parity

The court highlighted that if the complainant was denied a share in his grandmother’s property, the appropriate recourse lay in a civil suit for partition and declaration. Furthermore, the court noted that principal accused (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court on the same day in Crl.Misc. No. 2469/2024. Consequently, the attesting witness was held entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.

3. Application of Governing Precedents

The court emphasized that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract death or life imprisonment. Referring to Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court held that pre-arrest protection should be extended to prevent unnecessary pre-trial detention where the accused has verifiable local roots in Bengaluru and presents no flight risk.

4. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty

Holding that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be adequately safeguarded by imposing strict conditions—including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer and prohibition against leaving the country without permission.

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, LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri B.G. Pramoda allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The respondent police shall release the petitioner/accused No. 4 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 61/2024 of Jnanabharathi Police Station, pending on the file of the 9th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, upon executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and furnish all necessary information as required.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for during the course of investigation and cooperate with the investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or any police officer, or tamper with the evidence.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.
5. The petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar or any other nature in the future.

Note: Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions would entitle cancellation of bail.