In a judicial order delivered on April 3, 2024, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF, allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2819/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Arun Kumar Krishnan (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 228/2023 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.) Court, Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Smt. Shashikala H.P., Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru.

• Triggering Complaint: One Atheek Sulaiman, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Raziya Sulaiman, brought to the Sub-Registrar’s notice a suspicious ₹200/- embossed stamp paper dated August 8, 2017 (Sl. No. 95863, Franking Machine PB No. 6924).
• Discrepancy Uncovered: Official verification revealed that Franking Machine PB No. 6924 belonged to the Gandhinagar Sub-Registrar Office, whereas the seal affixed on the disputed stamp paper pertained to the Shivaji Nagar Sub-Registrar Office.
• Internal Audit Findings: A review of the official franking register for August 9, 2017 (Sl. Nos. 407837 to 409826) indicated that Machine PB No. 6924 was unauthorizedly accessed to fabricate fake stamp papers, seals, and signatures.
• Alleged Misuse & Loss: The prosecution alleged that the forged document was utilized by Arun Kumar Krishnan (Accused No. 1) and Shama Unnisa (Accused No. 2), causing a financial loss running into lakhs of rupees to the state exchequer. Based on these allegations, the Halasurgate Police registered Crime No. 228/2023 under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Arun Kumar Krishnan (Accused No. 1)
• Father’s Name: P.K. Krishnan
• Age: 51 years
• Residential Address: No. 32, 5th Main, Jayamahal Extension, Benson Town Post, Jayamahal, Bengaluru – 560 046
• Legal Representation: Sri M. Chalapathi, Advocate

Arguments Advanced

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he is innocent, had no involvement in fabricating stamp seals, and was falsely implicated on the basis of forged/disputed instruments.
2. Civil Litigation Background: The defence highlighted an underlying civil property dispute, asserting that the criminal complaint was engineered to prejudice his civil rights.
3. Non-Capital Offences: The alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
4. Local Roots & Undertaking: The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal antecedents. He promised to fully cooperate with the police investigation and submit to all court conditions.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Severe Loss to Public Revenue: The Public Prosecutor, supported by the Investigating Officer’s report, submitted that the accused misused an official government franking machine to create counterfeit instruments and defeat state revenue.
2. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the fake franking machine, identify co-conspirators, and prevent evidence tampering.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR, registry audit details, and legal precedents to decide whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Preponderance of Documentary Evidence

The court noted that the entire case relies on documentary evidence, franking registers, and government records maintained by the Sub-Registrar offices.

2. Application of Binding Precedents

Judge Kalpana M.S. relied on landmark Supreme Court rulings:

• Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2023) AIR SC 1570]: The Supreme Court held that where a case is primarily based on documentary evidence, custodial arrest of the accused is generally not warranted.
• State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447]: Reaffirmed the foundational legal doctrine that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51]: Reiterated guidelines governing arrest and pre-trial detention in non-capital offences.

3. Civil Dispute Dimension

The court found substance in the submission that the transaction was intertwined with an ongoing civil property controversy, noting that commercial or civil disputes are frequently given a criminal texture.

4. Absence of Flight Risk

Acknowledging that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru without criminal antecedents, the court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation could be adequately addressed through strict conditions rather than pre-trial detention.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Kalpana M.S. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

In the event of arrest in Crime No. 228/2023 of Halasurgate Police Station, Arun Kumar Krishnan (Accused No. 1) shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Appearance before I.O.: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order and make himself available for investigation as and when required.
2. Address Proof Submission: He shall furnish official identity and residential address proofs for himself and his sureties at the time of executing bonds.
3. Station Attendance: He shall mark his attendance at the Halasurgate Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the conclusion of the investigation or for 3 months, whichever is earlier.
4. No Witness Tampering: He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the police or court.
5. Territorial Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
6. No Criminal Activity: He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
7. Address Change Intimation: The petitioner and his sureties shall immediately intimate any change in residential address to the trial court without fail.

Note: Any violation of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.