The Court of the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka), I/c of LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-70), presided over by Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A. Law, LL.B., delivered a judicial order on March 22, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2812/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to four petitioners—Talib Hassan Darvesh (Accused No. 1), Abdul Rasheed (Accused No. 2), Syed Firous Inayath (Accused No. 3), and Affan Khan (Accused No. 4)—in connection with Crime No. 71/2024 registered by the Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 423 (dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration), 506 (criminal intimidation), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a written information lodged on February 16, 2024, by Mr. Anikethan H.V.U. on behalf of M/s. Tusker Workspace Pvt. Ltd.:

• Sub-Lease Agreement and Security Deposit: According to the complaint, the informant’s company entered into a registered sub-lease agreement on April 21, 2023, with M/s. Godolphin India Pvt. Ltd. (GIP) concerning a commercial property measuring 30,350 square feet. As per the agreement, the informant was required to pay an interest-free refundable security deposit of ₹2,52,46,500/-.
• Payments and Allegations of Deception: The informant stated that they paid ₹2,01,97,200/- through various bank transactions and issued a cheque for the remaining balance. However, they subsequently discovered that the original lessor, M/s. U.M. Projector LLP (UMP), had pre-existing disputes and pending legal issues with GIP. The informant alleged that GIP and its directors/representatives knowingly entered into the transaction to misappropriate the deposited funds (₹2,01,97,200/-) and infringe upon their leasehold rights, prompting the police complaint.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Talib Hassan Darvesh, aged about 43 years, residing at No. 51/1, Promenade Road, Santhosh Hospital, Fraser Town, Bengaluru – 560005.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Abdul Rasheed, aged about 48 years, residing at No. 1331, 10th Cross, R.K. Hegde Main Road, Bengaluru North, Dr. Shivarama Karanth Nagar, Bengaluru – 560077.
• Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3: Syed Firous Inayath, aged about 49 years, residing at No. 42/1, 12th Cross, Pillanna Garden, 3rd Stage, Near Manahill School, Sagayapuram, Bangalore North, Arabic College, Bengaluru – 560045.
• Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4: Affan Khan, aged about 32 years, residing at No. 9/1, 3rd Cross, L.B.F. Road, Dodda Mavalli, Bengaluru South, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560004.
• Legal Representation: Sri Nitin Ramesh, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Ashoknagar Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Civil Dispute and Volley of Litigations: The defense maintained that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners, who were directors or employees of GIP. Counsel pointed out that multiple rounds of civil and commercial litigation were already pending between the parties, including commercial appeals before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and an arbitration case (CMP No. 471/2023) wherein the High Court had appointed a sole arbitrator on February 7, 2024, to adjudicate disputes between GIP and the informant.
2. Abuse of Criminal Process: It was argued that a purely commercial and contractual dispute was being given a criminal color to pressurize the petitioners and twist their arms to extract advantages, and that custodial interrogation was entirely unwarranted.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report, contending that the allegations disclosed clear misappropriation of funds, cheating, and defrauding of the informant, warranting custodial interrogation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon reviewing the record of prior litigations, arbitration orders, and rival submissions, Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Prevalence of Civil and Arbitral Proceedings: The court observed that the dispute arose out of a commercial sub-lease transaction where multiple civil and arbitral proceedings were actively pending between the parties, including Commercial Appeal No. 19/2024 and CMP No. 471/2023 (wherein the High Court appointed a sole arbitrator).
2. Commercial Disputes vs. Criminal Intent: Citing settled legal principles, the court reiterated that a civil or commercial dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution merely to coerce parties or settle scores. The prosecution failed to establish any initial malafide intention required to sustain an offence under Section 420 IPC.
3. Absence of Specific Overt Acts: The judge noted that the invocation of Section 34 IPC requires specific overt acts, which were absent against the individual petitioners, and the offences alleged were not heinous or punishable with death or life imprisonment, making pre-arrest bail appropriate under stringent conditions.

Final Anticipatory Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that the respondent police shall enlarge Talib Hassan Darvesh, Abdul Rasheed, Syed Firous Inayath, and Affan Khan on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 71/2024 of Ashoknagar Police Station, upon each executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. No Witness Tampering: The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
2. Investigative Cooperation: The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and appear before him as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
3. Non-Recidivism: The petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences.
4. Surrender Timeline: The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
5. Court Attendance: The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly on all dates of hearing.