The Court of the LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 61), presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3096/2024 on April 10, 2024. The judicial order granted anticipatory bail to Manjunath K.M. (Accused No. 5) and his wife, Dhakshayini P. (Accused No. 6), in connection with Crime No. 171/2024 registered by the Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Allegations in the Complaint
The criminal proceedings originated from a first information report lodged by Smt. Suma Srinivas Achar. According to the complainant, she is the absolute owner of a residential property bearing Site No. 5, BBMP Khatha No. 5/5/5, measuring 2,880 square feet, situated at Kengeri Satellite Town Extension, Bengaluru, acquired via a registered Gift Deed dated February 15, 1984.
The complainant alleged that upon checking the Encumbrance Certificate (EC) of her property, she discovered that the name of one Nagarathna was reflecting as the owner and that a loan had been availed against the title from Canara Bank, Shesadripuram Branch. Upon further inquiries with bank officials and intermediaries, she was informed that the property had previously been transferred through alleged intermediary deeds involving third parties. The complainant alleged that accused persons persuaded her into executing an Agreement to Sell dated August 12, 2022, and a subsequent registered Agreement to Sell dated August 26, 2022, in favor of Dhakshayini P. She asserted that while the true agreed consideration was higher, the document fraudulently reflected a reduced sale consideration of ₹2,50,00,000/-.
The details of the petitioners as per court records are:
- Manjunath K.M. (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 5): Aged about 39 years, son of Mailarappa, proprietor running a real estate business under the name M/s. Keerthi Infinity.
- Dhakshayini P. (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 6): Aged about 36 years, wife of K.M. Manjunath.
- Address: Both residing at No. 938, 1st Main Road, 6th “A” Cross, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru – 560060.
Defense Submissions and Legal Arguments
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, advocate Sri Beeresha H. submitted that both applicants were innocent of any criminal conspiracy or forgery and had been falsely implicated in a dispute that is purely civil in nature. The defense highlighted that Dhakshayini P. entered into a registered Agreement to Sell dated August 26, 2022, with the complainant for a total sale consideration of ₹2,50,00,000/-, wherein the complainant’s husband also signed as a consenting witness.
Counsel for the petitioners demonstrated that an aggregate advance sale consideration of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) had been paid to the complainant through bank transfers and cash acknowledgments. When the complainant subsequently failed to execute the final Sale Deed, Petitioner No. 2 issued a formal legal notice dated March 25, 2024. The defense argued that upon receiving the legal notice, the complainant lodged a false criminal complaint on the very same evening to evade contractual obligations. The defense further pointed out that the petitioners never denied the complainant’s title over the property and were even willing to forego their contractual rights if their advance consideration was refunded.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest protection by filing formal objections alongside a status report from the Investigating Officer. The prosecution submitted that preliminary investigation pointed toward a larger conspiracy involving multiple accused persons who manipulated property documents, created cloud on the title, and induced the execution of sale agreements at undervalued rates. The state expressed concern that if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioners might threaten prosecution witnesses, destroy documentary evidence, or obstruct the ongoing police investigation.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the FIR, the registered Agreement to Sell dated August 26, 2022, bank transaction receipts, and legal notices, Judge Narashimsa M.V. evaluated whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The court observed that the registered agreement explicitly recognized the complainant as the absolute owner of the site, establishing that the petitioners were not asserting adverse title or forged ownership deeds against her.
The court noted that substantial advance consideration totaling ₹1,00,00,000/- had been transferred to the complainant, and the controversy essentially revolved around contractual terms, valuation discrepancies, and performance of a real estate agreement. The court held that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature, arising out of a commercial transaction for immovable property. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the evidence in the case is primarily documentary, which cannot be easily tampered with or destroyed. Observing that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court concluded that the state’s apprehensions could be adequately safeguarded by imposing strict conditions.
Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Manjunath K.M. and Dhakshayini P. in Crime No. 171/2024 of Kengeri Police Station.
The court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioners shall not disturb, threaten, or hamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before April 25, 2024, and cooperate with the investigation in all respects.
- Any violation of the imposed bail conditions shall result in the automatic cancellation of the anticipatory bail.