In a notable judicial order passed on April 5, 2024, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), Sri Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2879/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to M. Srinivas Rao, Managing Director of M/s. Windsor Edifices Private Limited, in connection with Crime No. 81/2024 registered by the Begur Police Station, Bengaluru, for an offence punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 3572/2024) filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate by one Prajwal Shetty, a real estate broker, which was subsequently referred to the Begur Police for investigation.

According to the complainant:

• Around August 1, 2022, the petitioner (M. Srinivas Rao) executed an agreement with the complainant promising a 2% brokerage commission if the complainant facilitated flat sales in his real estate project.
• Pursuant to this agreement, the complainant facilitated the sale of Flat No. B2-1311 at Windsor Troyika Apartments to one Dinesh Ban Chand for a total consideration of ₹1,09,93,600/-.
• Under the commission terms, the petitioner owed the complainant ₹1,99,402/-.
• The complainant alleged that when he requested the balance commission, the petitioner repeatedly delayed payment, avoided telephone calls, and cheated him out of his legitimate commission earnings.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• M. Srinivas Rao: Aged 53 years, son of Pichaiah, Managing Director of M/s. Windsor Edifices Private Limited, residing at No. 722, 37th Cross, 9th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was innocent of cheating, that payments due were already settled, and that the complainant manufactured the story to extract extra money beyond agreed terms.
• Belated Complaint and Civil Dispute: The defence pointed out that although the transaction spanned from August 1, 2022, to March 13, 2024, the complaint was lodged on March 15, 2024. Counsel argued that the dispute over unpaid real estate brokerage commission was purely civil in nature.
• Non-Capital Offence: The offence alleged under Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Roots in Society and Undertaking: The petitioner is a long-standing resident of Jayanagar, Bengaluru, managing a real estate enterprise. He promised to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all court conditions.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a statement of objections alongside the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Non-Compliance with Section 41A Notice: The prosecution submitted that police had issued a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to appear for questioning, but he failed to appear.
• Ongoing Investigation: Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail might lead to absconding, non-cooperation with the financial inquiry, or evidence tampering.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, contractual nature of the claim, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Civil Nature of Brokerage Dispute

Judge Sabappa observed that the dispute centered around an alleged failure to pay a ₹1,99,402/- real estate commission under a commercial arrangement. The court noted that contractual non-payment claims are primarily civil matters and do not automatically constitute criminal cheating without initial fraudulent intent.

2. Application of Governing Precedents (Arnesh Kumar Principles)

The court relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273], emphasizing that for offences punishable with imprisonment for 7 years or less:

• Police officers must not make arrests casually or mechanically.
• Courts must strike a balance between facilitating a fair investigation and preventing unnecessary harassment or pre-trial detention of accused persons.

3. Non-Capital Offence and Protection Against Arrest

The court noted that Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate. Holding that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with established business roots, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be safeguarded by imposing strict 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, LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Sri Sabappa 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. The petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 81/2024 of Begur Police Station, on executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of this order and cooperate for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. He shall cooperate with the investigation by the concerned police and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from his ordinary residence and shall furnish address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. He shall mark his attendance at the respondent police station between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM once a month (on the 2nd Sunday of every month) until the filing of the final report.

Note: If any of the above conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.