In a notable judicial order passed on March 30, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Concurrent charge of LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-67), Bengaluru, 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. 2887/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Marigappa in connection with Crime No. 79/2024 registered by the Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 417 (cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 423 (dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration), and 448 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 7798/2023) filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate by one Radhakrishna B.N. The complaint was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Kengeri Police Station, resulting in the registration of FIR Crime No. 79/2024.

According to the complainant:

• On October 13, 2020, he had borrowed money from one Shashikanth and executed a registered Sale Agreement alongside depositing original property title deeds as security.
• To clear that loan, the complainant approached the petitioner (Marigappa), who agreed to provide a fresh loan. Consequently, the earlier agreement with Shashikanth was canceled on July 25, 2022.
• The complainant alleged that Marigappa instructed him to execute a fresh Sale Agreement on July 25, 2022, as loan security. Relying on this representation and suffering from visual impairment (blindness in one eye and partial vision in the other), the complainant signed the document at the Sub-Registrar Office.
• The complainant alleged that Marigappa fraudulently executed a absolute Sale Deed dated July 25, 2022, in his own favor instead of a Sale Agreement, which came to light when Marigappa demanded that he vacate the house premises.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Marigappa: Aged about 59 years, son of late Venkatappa, residing at No. 2, 6th Block, Banashankari 6th Stage, Gattigerepalya, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru – 560060.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Bona Fide Property Purchase: The petitioner submitted that he purchased the house property (No. 328, Sri Rama Nilaya, BSK 6th Stage, 8th Block, Bengaluru, measuring 108 sq. meters) from the complainant for valuable sale consideration via a registered Sale Deed on July 25, 2022.
• Lease Agreement and Ongoing Civil Suits: The defence pointed out that on the same day (July 25, 2022), the complainant executed a Lease Agreement to remain in occupation. Due to non-vacation, civil litigation ensued:
  • The complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner in O.S. No. 25346/2022.
  • The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking formal eviction of the complainant in O.S. No. 25775/2022.
• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color: Counsel argued that the criminal complaint was a belated attempt to stall civil eviction proceedings.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under Sections 417, 418, 420, 423, and 448 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Undertaking: The petitioner promised to cooperate with the police investigation and submit to all court conditions.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that:

• Prima Facie Material: The complainant was visually impaired, and the accused took fraudulent advantage of his disability to convert a loan security transaction into a full sale transfer.
• Ongoing Investigation: Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation might lead to witness tampering, evidence destruction, or absconding.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, registered sale deed records, pending civil court filings, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Pending Civil Proceedings Between the Parties

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that both parties had already approached civil courts regarding possession and property rights (O.S. No. 25346/2022 and O.S. No. 25775/2022). The court noted that the dispute centered around registered instruments and property possession, which were subject to civil adjudication.

2. Nature of Penalties and Investigation Status

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 417, 418, 420, 423, and 448 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment. Holding that the guilt or innocence of the accused regarding the execution of the sale deed must be established during trial, the court held that pre-trial custodial detention was unnecessary.

3. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty

Holding that the petitioner is a local resident of Bengaluru and willing to abide by court conditions, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative, concluding that the prosecution’s concerns could be safeguarded by imposing reporting and cooperation conditions.

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, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent Kengeri Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 79/2024 (PCR No. 7798/2023) registered for offences punishable under Sections 423, 418, 420, 448, and 417 IPC, on execution of a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity.
5. The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.