BENGALURU – The LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the anticipatory bail application of 59-year-old Ramakrishna Reddy, who is accused of orchestrating a complex property fraud. The court, presided over by Judge Smt. Kalpana M.S., ruled that the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and the serious nature of the allegations made him ineligible for pre-arrest protection.

The case, registered as Crime No. 20/2024 at the Hebbal Police Station, involves charges under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), and 467 (Forgery of valuable security) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, a resident of R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru, sought bail fearing arrest in a case involving impersonation and the fraudulent acquisition of a compromise decree.

Case Background: Allegations of Forgery and Civil Collusion

The legal battle began with a complaint filed by J. Rathnamaiah. According to the prosecution, Rathnamaiah and his wife had purchased a property directly from Ramakrishna Reddy (Accused No. 1), following which the revenue records were successfully transferred into their names.

However, the complainant alleged that Reddy later colluded with other accused individuals to reclaim the property through deceptive legal means. It is alleged that the accused filed a civil suit (O.S.No. 5129/2022) and obtained a compromise decree by suppressing the fact that the property had already been sold. The complainant further alleged that the accused utilized impersonation and forgery to “grab” the property back and issued life threats when confronted.

Defense vs. Prosecution Arguments

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Sri B. Siddeshwara argued that the entire dispute was purely civil in nature and was being given a “criminal color” to harass his client. The defense contended that the allegations were vague and that since the offenses were not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the petitioner should be granted liberty. They further maintained that Reddy was a respectable member of society who would cooperate with the investigation.

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the plea, describing Reddy as a “habitual offender.” The prosecution presented a report from the Investigating Officer highlighting a staggering list of pending criminal cases against the petitioner. The State argued that granting bail would allow Reddy to tamper with witnesses, terrorize the complainant, and potentially abscond from trial.

A Long History of Criminal Antecedents

A pivotal factor in the court’s decision was the petitioner’s past record. The Investigating Officer’s report detailed at least seven other pending cases against Ramakrishna Reddy, dating back to 2008. These include:

• Cr.No. 188/2008: Cheating (Section 420 IPC)
• Cr.No. 300/2012, 288/2012, 290/2012, 297/2012, and 180/2012: All related to Section 420 IPC (Cheating).
• Cr.No. 382/2012: Forgery and using forged documents (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC).

Judge Kalpana M.S. noted that this list clearly established the petitioner as having significant “criminal antecedents,” which is a critical criterion in determining bail eligibility.

Judicial Analysis: Societal Concern vs. Individual Liberty

In her detailed order, the Judge cited the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Manikantan @ Bombe Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, which states that if an accused is found to be a habitual offender, the bail application can be rejected based on their antecedents.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 3-judge bench decision in Brijmani Devi V/s. Pappu Kumar, which emphasizes that while individual liberty is an invaluable right, it must be weighed against the “totality of the circumstances and criminal antecedents.” The Supreme Court held that the “collective cry” of society must be kept in view when dealing with serious accusations supported by adequate material.

Final Ruling

The Bengaluru court concluded that granting bail to a person with such an extensive history of similar offenses would send a “wrong message to society.” The Judge observed that there was a high probability of the petitioner repeating the offense or tampering with the ongoing investigation if released.

“Considering the serious nature of the offence and the conduct of the accused person, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief in favour of the petitioner,” the order stated.

With the rejection of the anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the Hebbal Police are now cleared to proceed with the arrest and custodial interrogation of Ramakrishna Reddy to further investigate the alleged property forgery and conspiracy.