The Court of the LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-68), presided over by Sri Kashim Churikhan, B.A., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2898/2024 on April 8, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 57-year-old Saji Joseph (Accused No. 1) in connection with C.C. No. 1994/2024, originating from Crime No. 110/2016 registered by the Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest under Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued in ongoing proceedings for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix of the Case and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the estranged wife of Accused No. 1 following marital discord and separation in the year 2015.

According to the prosecution charge sheet:

• Alleged Pressure and Intimidation: Accused No. 1 allegedly threatened and verbally abused the informant, demanding the transfer and registration of three real estate sites owned by her into his name.
• Creation of Forged Power of Attorney: To execute the fraudulent scheme, the accused allegedly created a fabricated General Power of Attorney (GPA) bearing the signatures of witnesses (C.W.5 and C.W.6).
• Execution of Sale Agreement: Utilizing the forged GPA, Accused No. 1 executed a registered sale agreement in favor of a third party (C.W.4) for the three sites, receiving a consideration amount.

Following police investigation, Hennur Police submitted a final charge sheet, which was registered as C.C. No. 1994/2024 before the 4th ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Saji Joseph (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 57 years, son of late Joseph, residing at No. 137/1, Ariyamannil House, Jothinagar, Horamavu Agara, Horamavu Post, Bengaluru – 560043.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri K.P.R. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Matrimonial and Civil Property Nature: The defense submitted that the dispute was essentially civil and matrimonial in origin, arising from ongoing litigation and counter-cases between the estranged spouses.
• Cooperation During Probe & Procedural Defect: Counsel emphasized that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigating agency during the initial probe and produced relevant documentation. The defense highlighted that Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) were directly issued by the magistrate court without prior service of summons, running counter to established Supreme Court guidelines on process issuance.
• Completion of Investigation: Because the police probe was complete and the final charge sheet had already been submitted, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
• Non-Capital Penalties: The alleged IPC offences do not carry mandatory penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Local Roots & Undertaking: Being a permanent resident of Horamavu, Bengaluru, with deep roots in the community, the petitioner assured the court of his readiness to abide by all terms and furnish solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by submitting a formal statement of objections:

• Prima Facie Case of Forgery: The state argued that the charge sheet materials established a prima facie case of creating a forged GPA to execute a registered sale agreement and misappropriate property rights.
• Apprehension of Evasion: The prosecution contended that the petitioner had been absconding from trial proceedings and expressed concern that granting pre-arrest protection might result in witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or further trial delays.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the charge sheet records, FIR details, and submissions, Judge Kashim Churikhan evaluated the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Completion of Investigation and Lack of Custodial Need

The court observed that because the investigating agency had completed its probe and filed the final charge sheet in C.C. No. 1994/2024, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was no longer required.

2. Trial Adjudication and Non-Capital Penalties

The court noted that the truth of the allegations—including the validity of property documents and marital claims—constituted matters to be established through full-fledged trial testimony. Crucially, the court highlighted that the offences alleged under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 506 do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment.

3. Safeguarding Attendance

Holding that the primary criteria for bail involve securing the presence of the accused for trial, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance could be effectively managed 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 Saji Joseph in C.C. No. 1994/2024 (Crime No. 110/2016) of Hennur Police Station.

The court directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
• The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
• The petitioner shall not indulge in committing any offences.