The Court of the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), presided over by Smt. Nisharani A.C., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3069/2024 on April 5, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 60-year-old Nagesh B. (Accused No. 1) and 30-year-old Adithya N. Rao (Accused No. 2) in connection with C.C. No. 22086/2023, arising out of Crime No. 189/2021 registered by the Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 422 (dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors), and 423 (dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a transaction executed on June 19, 2021. According to the prosecution records, the complainant took Flat No. G-01 (Property No. 66-187-59) situated at Vandana Jasmin Apartment in Venkatapura, 1st Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, on lease for a total consideration of ₹17,50,000/- from the accused persons.
Trouble arose when officials from Union Bank of India, accompanied by police personnel acting under a court order, arrived at the apartment and seized the property due to an unpaid bank mortgage loan subsisting on the flat. When the complainant confronted the accused regarding the bank action, they assured him that they would resolve the dispute, but subsequently switched off their mobile phones. Upon inspecting the property tax receipts at the municipal offices, the complainant discovered that the flat stood registered in the name of one Smt. Shyamala Bai. The complainant alleged that the petitioners misrepresented themselves as absolute owners of the flat, fraudulently induced him to part with ₹17,50,000/- as lease advance, and concealed the pre-existing mortgage liability.
The details of the petitioners as per court records are:
- Nagesh B. (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged about 60 years, son of late A. Babu Rao, residing at No. 28/1-59, 8th Cross, Opposite Venkateshwara Temple, Venkatapura, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034.
- Adithya N. Rao (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged about 30 years, son of Nagesh B., residing at the same address in Koramangala, Bengaluru.
Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners
Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri J. Prakash presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
- Completion of Investigation: Counsel highlighted that the police had completed the entire investigation into Crime No. 189/2021 and submitted a formal charge sheet (C.C. No. 22086/2023) before the jurisdictional magistrate court. Consequently, the petitioners were no longer required for any custodial interrogation or police inquiry.
- Property Ownership Documents: The petitioners produced a certified copy of an Absolute Sale Deed dated July 23, 2015, alongside municipal property records to demonstrate their bona fide claim and ownership rights over the subject premises.
- Non-Capital Penalties: The alleged statutory infractions under IPC Sections 420, 422, and 423 do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
- Local Roots and Permanent Abode: The applicants submitted their Aadhaar card records, establishing that both the father (aged 60) and son (aged 30) are permanent residents of Koramangala, Bengaluru, with deep roots in society. They promised to abide by all court-imposed terms, appear before the trial court upon summons, and offer solvent sureties.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections along with the status report of the Investigating Officer:
- Prima Facie Case of Fraud: The prosecution submitted that charge sheet materials established that the petitioners leased out an encumbered residential flat without disclosing the bank mortgage, collected ₹17.5 Lakhs, and caused severe financial loss to the tenant when Union Bank of India took possession.
- Apprehension of Non-Cooperation and Flight: The state expressed concern that if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioners might threaten prosecution witnesses, tamper with bank and property evidence, or abscond from court proceedings to evade trial.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the FIR, charge sheet records, Absolute Sale Deed dated July 23, 2015, Aadhaar records, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1. Completion of Investigation and Charge Sheet Filing
Judge Nisharani A.C. observed that because the investigating agency had concluded its probe and formally submitted the charge sheet in C.C. No. 22086/2023, the physical custody of the petitioners was no longer necessary for investigative purposes.
2. Absence of Flight Risk and Fixed Residential Standing
The court noted that the cause title entries, registered sale deed of 2015, and Aadhaar identification cards established that the petitioners are permanent residents of Koramangala, Bengaluru. The court held that their presence during trial could be easily secured without resorting to pre-trial incarceration.
3. Nature of Penalties and Trial Adjudication
Highlighting that the alleged IPC offences are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment, the court held that the guilt or innocence of the accused regarding title misrepresentation must be determined during a full-fledged trial. The court concluded that prosecution concerns regarding witness interference or non-attendance could be effectively safeguarded by imposing strict reporting 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 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 Nagesh B. and Adithya N. Rao in C.C. No. 22086/2023 (Crime No. 189/2021) of Madiwala 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 ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall not hold out any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential address and that of their sureties.
- The petitioners shall not indulge in offences of a similar nature in the future.
- The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
- Failure to obey any of the aforementioned conditions shall result in the automatic cancellation of this bail order.