The LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Srinivas K, the primary accused in a high-profile property fraud case involving the impersonation of a deceased woman. The order, delivered by Judge T. Govindaiah, emphasizes the gravity of white-collar crimes involving the fraudulent transfer of real estate through forged documentation and the impersonation of dead individuals.

The petitioner, Srinivas K, a 47-year-old resident of Gayatri Nagar, Rajajinagar, approached the court seeking protection from arrest in connection with Crime Number 86/2022 registered by the Madiwala Police Station. The accused faces charges under several stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 465 (punishment for forgery), and Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), all read with Section 34 which pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Allegations of Impersonating a Deceased Owner

The legal battle began when the complainants—J. Rajesh Shanmugavel, Poornima Menon, and Chithra Jagannathan—discovered that a valuable property in Koramangala 1st Stage, belonging to their late aunt, Smt. A.M. Shantha, had been illegally transferred. According to the prosecution, Smt. Shantha, who was unmarried, had executed a registered Will on April 2, 2011, bequeathing the property to her sisters’ children.

Smt. Shantha passed away on January 9, 2020. However, when the legal heirs approached the authorities to change the khatha (property records) based on the Will, they were stunned to find the property already registered in the name of Srinivas K. Investigations revealed that a sale deed had been registered on February 16, 2022—more than two years after the original owner’s death. The prosecution alleges that the accused, in collusion with others, used an impostor to pose as the deceased Smt. Shantha before the Sub-Registrar to execute the fraudulent sale.

Defense Claims Innocence and Broker Involvement

The counsel for Srinivas K argued that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser who had been misled. According to the defense, Srinivas was looking to invest in Bengaluru real estate and was introduced to a broker named Raj Chandrashekar. The broker allegedly presented Smt. A.M. Shantha as the owner and facilitated the transaction.

The petitioner claimed to have paid the full sale consideration and asserted that he had no knowledge that the woman appearing at the Sub-Registrar’s office was an impostor. The defense further argued that since the offenses are triable by a Magistrate and not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the petitioner should be granted liberty, promising full cooperation with the investigation.

Judicial Reasoning for Rejecting Bail

The court, however, took a stern view of the “serious and heinous” nature of the allegations. Judge T. Govindaiah noted that the material on record prima facie indicates a well-planned conspiracy to grab high-value property in a prime location like Koramangala.

The court observed that while the offenses might not carry the highest possible penalties under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the act of impersonating a deceased person for wrongful financial gain has a significant negative impact on society. The judge remarked that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the full extent of the fraud, identify the impostor, and determine the involvement of other intermediaries or officials.

The court expressed concern that if released on anticipatory bail at this stage, the petitioner might tamper with crucial documents, threaten prosecution witnesses, or abscond to avoid justice. The judge concluded that the gravity of the crime outweighed the petitioner’s plea for personal liberty.

With the rejection of this bail petition, the Madiwala Police are expected to intensify their efforts to take Srinivas K into custody for further questioning and to recover any forged documents related to the Koramangala property.