BENGALURU, INDIA — In a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy related to a lease agreement, the LXI Additional City Civil, Sessions Judge (CCH-62) in Bengaluru, Sri. Sirajuddeen A., granted anticipatory bail to two senior citizens, Arif Abu Suffian Khatai Arif (65) and Smt. Syeda Massarath Unnisa Arif (60). The order, pronounced on May 3, 2024, allows the petitioners to be released in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr. No. 39/2024 registered at the Kengeri Police Station.

The petitioners were booked for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 511 (Attempt to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), and 420 (Cheating).

Allegations of Cheating in Lease Agreement

The case stems from a complaint filed regarding a flat lease transaction. The complainant alleged that while searching for a house, he contacted Accused No. 2, Shabbir Ahmed. The petitioners, Arif Abu Suffian Khatai Arif (Accused No. 1) and Smt. Syeda Massarath Unnisa Arif (Accused No. 3), were introduced as the apartment building owners, with Shabbir Ahmed allegedly acting as their General Power of Attorney (GPA) Holder for managing the building affairs.

The key allegations against the accused persons include:

• The complainant took a flat on lease for a period of two years via an agreement dated July 29, 2022.
• The accused allegedly demanded and received an advance amount of ₹5,00,000 to vacate an old tenant, with the complainant ultimately paying a total of ₹9,00,000 on different dates through cash, DD, and PhonePe to Accused No. 2, who issued receipts.
• The petitioners and other accused allegedly collected ₹15,000 from each tenant (a total of ₹3,15,000) under the promise of providing a separate electricity meter.
• The complainant later received a notice from Petitioner No. 1 directing him to vacate the flat within three months.
• Crucially, the complainant discovered that the electricity for the entire apartment was disconnected due to a massive outstanding bill of ₹2,23,400 owed to BESCOM (Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited).
• Furthermore, the complainant learned that the flat he was leasing had already been sold to a third party back in January 2018.

The complaint alleges that the petitioners and other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant by leasing a mortgaged/sold property and forcing him to vacate without refunding the lease amount.

Defence and Judicial Reasoning

The petitioners, represented by their counsel Sri. N.M. Handral, asserted their complete innocence, stating they had never met the complainant, nor had they received any amount from him. They argued that the complainant’s dealings were solely with Accused No. 2, and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners also highlighted that Petitioner No. 1 had himself lodged a complaint against Accused No. 2 (Cr. No. 393/2023 at Jayanagar P.S.), who is currently in judicial custody, suggesting a separate conflict.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that granting anticipatory bail would allow the petitioners to threaten, abscond, and tamper with prosecution witnesses.

The court, after scrutinizing the material on record, adopted a nuanced approach:

1. Nature of Allegations: The court noted that while the allegations hint at a collusion between some of the accused, the primary transaction was a lease agreement, which is usually supported by documentary evidence. The payments made by the complainant are also likely evidenced by documents.
2. Documentary Evidence: The court observed that the allegations against the accused can largely be proved or disproved by examining the documentary evidence (lease agreement, payment receipts, sale deed, BESCOM records), thus mitigating the risk of the petitioners severely tampering with physical evidence or requiring their immediate custodial interrogation.
3. Role of Petitioners vs. Accused No. 2: The court noted that the allegations suggest that most of the money was received by Accused No. 2 (Shabbir Ahmed), either personally or through his GPA Holder. The precise role and involvement of the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 3) require investigation, but the facts do not necessarily justify denying pre-arrest bail, especially since the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
4. Counter-Complaint: The fact that Petitioner No. 1 had already filed a complaint against Accused No. 2 was also a factor considered by the court.

The Sessions Judge ultimately concluded that the petitioners had made out valid grounds for being released on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions to ensure their cooperation with the investigation and presence at trial.

Conditions for Release

The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioners in the event of their arrest, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Personal Bond and Surety: The petitioners must execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹2,00,000 each with one surety for the like amount.
2. Cooperation with I.O.: The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 30 days from the date of the order and co-operate in the investigation.
3. Mandatory Attendance: The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Kengeri Police Station once a week on the second Saturday of every month until the filing of the charge sheet or for a period of six months, whichever is earlier.
4. No Tampering/Threat: The petitioners shall not hold any threat to the complainant or tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.
5. Address Proof: They must furnish their residential address proof and that of their surety.
6. Future Conduct: They shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
7. Trial Appearance: They must appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of the summons.

The court explicitly stated that the failure to obey any of these conditions would automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail order.