The Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, presided over by Sri Hareesha A., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2978/2024 on April 16, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 49-year-old Noushada Sultan @ Siddiq Mohammed Sultan in connection with Crime No. 14/2023 registered by the Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix of the Real Estate Dispute and FIR Transfer
The criminal proceedings originated from a commercial dispute between real estate developers and property owners. The complainant, Narendra Babu K., Director of M/s. Hiren Wahin Build Tech Ltd., located at Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, lodged an initial complaint with the Jayanagar Police Station. According to the complainant, Accused No. 1 had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with L. Prakash, the owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 81 and 86, measuring 1 acre 18 guntas. To execute the residential construction project, the complainant and Accused No. 1 raised project funds through third-party loans and executed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) promising flat allocations to investors.
The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 colluded with the petitioner, Noushada Sultan @ Siddiq Mohammed Sultan, to sell residential flats to third-party purchasers without obtaining the requisite signatures or consent of the complainant. It was further alleged that when challenged regarding unauthorized property alienations, the accused persons issued death threats and indulged in criminal intimidation. Based on these allegations, the Jayanagar Police initially registered FIR Crime No. 216/2022. On January 27, 2023, the case file was transferred to the Marathahalli Police Station due to geographical jurisdiction considerations, where it was re-registered under Crime No. 14/2023.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Noushada Sultan @ Siddiq Mohammed Sultan (Petitioner): Aged about 49 years, son of Syed Mohiuddin Sultan Saheb, residing at New No. 34, Old No. 4, 1st Floor, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Maruthi Layout, Bengaluru – 560029.
Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri B.R. Akbar presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
- Prior Grant of Anticipatory Bail: The defense brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc. No. 10103/2022 when the case was being investigated under Crime No. 216/2022 by the Jayanagar Police.
- Jurisdictional Re-Registration: Counsel submitted that following the administrative transfer of the case file to the Marathahalli Police Station under Crime No. 14/2023, the petitioner developed a fresh and well-founded apprehension of arrest by the new investigating agency for the same set of factual allegations.
- Documentary Nature of Evidence: The defense highlighted that the dispute centered on land development agreements, power of attorney executions, and flat sale deeds, all of which are documented transactions requiring no custodial interrogation.
- Non-Capital Offences: The alleged offences under IPC Sections 406, 417, 420, and 506 are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
- Undertaking: The applicant assured the court of his readiness to cooperate fully with the investigating officer, abide by all imposed conditions, and offer solvent local sureties.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections on behalf of the state:
- Prima Facie Material: The prosecution submitted that primary records established the active involvement of the petitioner in unauthorized flat sales, leading to substantial financial losses for project investors.
- Apprehension of Non-Cooperation and Witness Intimidation: The state expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might attempt to influence witnesses, tamper with land registration records, or evade investigation directives.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the complaint, FIR re-registration records, and the earlier bail order passed in Crl.Misc. No. 10103/2022, Judge Hareesha A. evaluated whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1. Effect of Jurisdictional Transfer on Existing Protection
The court observed that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest was genuine and well-founded, as the case was re-registered at Marathahalli Police Station following a territorial transfer from Jayanagar Police Station. Recognizing that the court had already examined the primary factual matrix and granted pre-arrest protection in Crl.Misc. No. 10103/2022, the court held that the same benefit ought to extend to the transferred Crime No. 14/2023.
2. Documentary Evidence and Trial Jurisdiction
The court noted that the prosecution’s allegations relied almost exclusively on registered instruments, banking logs, and construction contracts. Observing that all alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and carry non-capital penalties, the court concluded that physical custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
3. Safeguarding Investigation Integrity
Holding that the state’s concerns regarding flight risk or investigation delay could be effectively managed by imposing reporting conditions, the court resolved the point for consideration in the affirmative.
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 Conditions Imposed
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the XXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Hareesha A. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:
The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 14/2023 registered by the Marathahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent police are directed to release him on bail upon obtaining a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the police and trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.
- The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not commit similar offences in the future.
- The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.