In an order pronounced on April 3, 2024, the Court of the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), presided over by Sri T. Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3102/2024. The court granted pre-arrest protection to 58-year-old Sai Prakash @ Sai Prame @ Sai Elangovana Dilip Kumar Behara (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 197/2022 registered by the HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint filed regarding alleged impersonation and fraudulent creation of property documents to secure a financial loan.

• Property Origin & Joint Venture: According to the complainant, his late mother, Jayamma, executed a registered gift deed on January 20, 2005, conveying her self-acquired property at Bommanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru (measuring 4,218 sq. ft.) to him. In 2016, the complainant entered into a joint development agreement with a builder from Ostrich Group of Companies. Construction was completed in 2020, yielding 17 residential flats—8 allotted to the builder and 9 to the complainant.
• Discovery of Unregistered Encumbrance: The complainant retained Flat Nos. 103 and 203 while selling or renting out the rest. Approximately three to four months prior to lodging the complaint, two representatives from LIC Housing Finance Limited (LIC HFL) visited the building inquiring about the occupant of Flat No. 203, stating that a loan had been disbursed against the flat and Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) were in default. The complainant clarified that he was the rightful owner and had never mortgaged or sold Flat No. 203.
• Alleged Impersonation & Loan Fraud: Upon receiving a police notice from the Ashok Nagar Police Station in connection with Crime No. 84/2022, the complainant discovered that the accused persons had allegedly impersonated him, fabricated forged title documents for Flat No. 203, and colluded with financial officials to secure a loan from LIC HFL without submitting original property documents.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sai Prakash @ Sai Prame @ Sai Elangovana Dilip Kumar Behara (Accused No. 2)
• Father’s Name: Jaichandran
• Age: 58 years
• Residential Address: No. 45, Dwarakamaye, 1st A Cross, 5th B Main, Punya Bhoomi Layout, Kalkere Extension, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bengaluru
• Legal Representation: Sri Satheesha T., Advocate

Submissions & Arguments

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated in the criminal case.
2. Medical & Health Grounds: Counsel emphasized that the 58-year-old applicant suffered from multiple chronic health conditions, including cardiac disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes, which severely impaired his mobility.
3. Parity: It was brought to the court’s attention that Accused No. 1 had already been enlarged on bail.
4. Nature of Offences & Local Roots: The alleged IPC offences do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment. Being a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the petitioner offered to furnish solvent sureties and abide by all court-imposed conditions.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Prima Facie Material: The Public Prosecutor, supported by the Investigating Officer’s report, submitted that preliminary evidence indicated the petitioner’s active involvement in forging property records and cheating the financial institution.
2. Apprehension of Interference: The state expressed concern that granting pre-arrest protection might result in the intimidation of the complainant, tampering with prosecution evidence, or evasion of the legal process.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the complaint, police investigation status, and arguments presented by both sides, the Sessions Court addressed whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

1. Civil Nature of Dispute & Completion of Investigation

Judge T. Govindaiah noted that the core controversy revolves around the validity, genuineness, and alleged forgery of property sale instruments and agreements, which inherently fall within the domain of civil adjudication. Furthermore, the investigating agency had completed its primary investigation and filed the final charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate court, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

2. Parity & Medical Considerations

Taking into consideration that Accused No. 1 had already been granted bail and noting the petitioner’s documented medical conditions (cardiac ailment, hypertension, diabetes), the court observed that pre-trial detention was unwarranted.

3. Non-Capital Penalties

Highlighting that the alleged offences under IPC Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 120B read with Section 34 are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, the court held that the state’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation or trial attendance could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions.

Final Court Order & Imposed Conditions

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

In the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 197/2022 of HSR Layout Police Station (pending on the file of the XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru), Sai Prakash (Accused No. 2) 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. Bond Execution: The petitioner shall appear before the learned XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and execute the personal bond along with sureties within 30 days from the date of the order.
2. Investigation Cooperation: The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when called upon.
3. Address Proof: The petitioner shall furnish his permanent residential address proof before the trial court.
4. Non-Recidivism: The petitioner shall not get involved in any criminal activities.
5. Territorial Limits: The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

Note: Any violation of the above conditions shall result in the automatic cancellation of bail.