In a notable judicial order delivered on April 19, 2024, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2820/2024. The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail protection to M.B. Basavaraju in connection with Crime No. 519/2023 registered by the Ashok Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 405/406 (criminal breach of trust), 415/420 (cheating), 424 (dishonest or fraudulent removal of property), 425/427 (mischief), and 503/504/506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 1364/2020) filed before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru, by Sri Prithviraj Langthasa, a retired IAS Officer. The complaint was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Ashok Nagara Police Station for investigation, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 519/2023.

According to the complainant:

• In 2013, he purchased a 1/3rd undivided share in the commercial property bearing No. 31, PID No. 70-48-31, situated at Shanthi Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, through a court auction conducted on August 7, 2013, by Indian Bank (Asset Recovery Management Branch).
• On the same day, he acquired the remaining 2/3rd undivided share from the co-owners (Smt. Nalini Jayanthi and Sri V. Ravindranath) via a registered sale deed.
• The petitioner, M.B. Basavaraju, was an existing tenant occupying a commercial portion of the building under a prior lease agreement. The petitioner challenged the court sale certificate before the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. Nos. 13505-13506/2012, which was dismissed on January 29, 2013.
• Following discussions, the complainant agreed to pay ₹30,00,000/- (₹30 Lakhs) as monetary compensation to the petitioner to facilitate peaceful vacation and delivery of vacant possession of the shop premises.
• The complainant alleged that despite receiving the entire ₹30 Lakhs compensation, the petitioner refused to vacate the property, issued life threats when confronted, and took advantage of the complainant’s residence in Chennai.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• M.B. Basavaraju: Aged about 65 years, son of late H. Basappa, residing at No. 31, Shanthi Main Road, Shanthinagar, BBMP Ward No. 117, Bengaluru – 560 027.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Bona Fide Tenancy Rights: The petitioner maintained that he was the sole lawful tenant in physical possession of the commercial shop under a valid rental agreement executed by the previous property owner.
• Respectable Standing: The petitioner emphasized that he hails from a respectable family with deep roots in Bengaluru society.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under IPC Sections 403, 406, 420, 427, and 506 are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioner expressed a well-founded fear of arrest following the registration of the FIR.
• Undertaking: The applicant promised to abide by all court conditions and offer solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution and Investigating Officer’s Report

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a formal report from the Investigating Officer (I.O.) alongside a statement of objections:

• Filing of ‘B’ Final Report: The prosecution submitted that upon completing a thorough investigation into Crime No. 519/2023, the Ashok Nagara Police concluded that the dispute between the landlord and tenant was purely civil in nature.
• Absence of Apprehension of Arrest: The Investigating Officer formally filed a ‘B’ Final Report before the jurisdictional magistrate court seeking closure of the criminal case. Consequently, the police were not seeking the arrest or custodial detention of the petitioner.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, I.O. status report, and statutory provisions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for anticipatory bail.

1. Statutory Prerequisite for Anticipatory Bail

Judge A.V. Patil analyzed the foundational requirement of Section 438 Cr.P.C., which mandates that a direction for pre-arrest bail can be issued only when an applicant establishes a reasonable, objective apprehension of imminent arrest on accusations of non-bailable offences.

2. Impact of the ‘B’ Final Report

The court observed that because the Ashok Nagara Police completed the investigation and submitted a formal ‘B’ Final Report confirming the dispute was civil in nature, the police agency had closed its pursuit of custodial arrest.

3. Non-Existence of Apprehension

Holding that the filing of a closure report eliminates the threat of arrest at the hands of the police, the court held that the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. became redundant. In the absence of a genuine threat of arrest, the court concluded that an order granting anticipatory bail could not be issued.

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 civil or contractual rights of the parties, which remain subject to civil court adjudication.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A.V. Patil formally rejected the anticipatory bail petition on April 19, 2024:

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, M.B. Basavaraju, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.