The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to K.V. Raman, an 83-year-old senior citizen, in a case involving allegations of property-related cheating and fraud. The court, presided over by Sri S. Nataraj, observed that the octogenarian appeared to be a bona fide purchaser who may have been misled by other accused individuals regarding the legal heirship of the property in question. The order provides significant relief to the petitioner, who sought protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 329/2022 registered at the Peenya Police Station.

The Case Background and Allegations of Fraud

The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint by a woman who claimed that she was the rightful legal heir to Site No. 338, a property originally gifted to her late husband, Sundaresh, by his father. According to the complainant, she and her husband were married in 1997 and had a daughter. Following the death of her husband in 2012 and her daughter in 2013, she moved to her parents’ house.

The complainant alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are relatives of the deceased, took advantage of her absence. They reportedly cleared a bank loan associated with the property, obtained the original title documents, and then orchestrated a fraudulent sale. The crux of the criminal charge is that these accused individuals executed a sale deed in favor of K.V. Raman (Accused No. 5) by falsely representing that Sundaresh had died a bachelor, thereby intentionally excluding the complainant’s rights as a surviving spouse and legal heir.

Defense Arguments for K.V. Raman

Representing the 83-year-old petitioner, Advocate R. Chandrakumar argued that K.V. Raman is an illiterate senior citizen who acted in good faith. The defense contended that Raman had no knowledge of the complainant’s existence or her relationship with the deceased. He reportedly relied on the assurances of Accused No. 2 and the officials of the Mahila Co-operative Bank.

Furthermore, the defense pointed out that Raman had taken the necessary precautions of an ordinary purchaser, including obtaining a formal legal opinion from an advocate before proceeding with the transaction. He had visited the property and was informed that Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were the rightful owners following a release deed executed in 2017. The petitioner maintained that he had paid a substantial amount for the house and was, in fact, a victim of the circumstances rather than a conspirator in the fraud.

The Prosecution Opposition

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner and other accused persons had collectively cheated the complainant. The prosecution argued that the sale deed was inherently fraudulent because it suppressed the fact that the complainant was a legal heir. They expressed concerns that since the investigation was still pending, granting bail to the petitioner might lead to him absconding or interfering with the collection of evidence.

The Court Analysis and Verdict

In evaluating the petition, the court noted that the complainant had already initiated a civil suit for partition in OS.7144/2022, suggesting that the matter has significant civil overtones. Judge S. Nataraj observed that there was currently no material evidence to suggest that K.V. Raman was aware of the complainant’s rights or that he possessed the requisite criminal intent to cheat her at the time of purchase.

The court highlighted the petitioner’s advanced age and health condition. At 83 years old, Raman produced medical records indicating he suffers from age-related illnesses. The judge remarked that custodial interrogation was not necessary, especially since the petitioner appeared to be a victim of the misrepresentations made by the other family members of the deceased.

Given that the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry a penalty of death or life imprisonment, the court found the petitioner entitled to protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Bail Conditions and Requirements

The court allowed the petition and ordered that K.V. Raman be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond of 50,000 Rupees with one surety of a like sum. To ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation, the court imposed the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer on or before February 13, 2023, for the purpose of the investigation.
2. The petitioner is strictly prohibited from threatening witnesses or destroying any evidence related to the case.
3. The petitioner must appear before the trial court regularly on all scheduled hearing dates without fail.
4. Any violation of these conditions will result in the immediate cancellation of the bail order.

This decision underscores the court’s tendency to protect senior citizens in property disputes where the criminal intent of the buyer is not immediately evident and the dispute is primarily civil in nature.