The LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Srinivasan Thangavel, a Director of Hoskote Neo Homes Limited and subsidiary of Artha Real Estate Corporation Limited. The court decision comes in response to a criminal case involving allegations of property fraud and financial irregularities registered at the H.A.L Police Station.

Background of the Dispute and Allegations

The legal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by Kirandeep Kaur, who alleged that she had invested a significant sum of 14,44,713 Rupees into a project titled “Emprasa Startup City Phase 2.” The investment was reportedly made in April 2017 through a private wealth management firm. According to the complainant, despite the substantial payment, the developers failed to provide the promised flat or return the invested capital.

Following the non-delivery of the property, the H.A.L Police registered a case under Crime Number 525/2019. The charges were primarily based on Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal breach of trust, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code regarding common intention.

Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

Srinivasan Thangavel, represented by advocate Sri. K.N. Nanjireddy, filed the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defense argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated for extraneous reasons. A key component of the defense was the assertion that a settlement had already been reached between the company and the complainant.

The petitioner informed the court that the company had already paid approximately 4,63,333 Rupees to the complainant as monthly incentives between 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, as the dispute escalated, a settlement agreement was reportedly executed on February 8, 2021, at the H.A.L Police Station. Under this agreement, the petitioner company issued two Demand Drafts totaling 9,81,380 Rupees as a full and final settlement.

The defense emphasized that the complainant had agreed to withdraw all pending complaints before the Delhi Police, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), and the Bengaluru Police as part of this resolution. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that since the investigation was already complete and a chargesheet had been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Prosecution Resistance

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the cheating allegations. The prosecution argued that the petitioner had deceived the complainant and that granting bail could lead to the accused absconding or tampering with the prosecution’s evidence. They maintained that the Director was actively involved in the alleged offenses and that the interest of the investigation required his presence in custody.

The Court’s Reasoning and Final Verdict

Judge Sri. Sabappa, after reviewing the materials and hearing both sides, observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and had already seen significant steps toward resolution through a settlement agreement. The court noted that the alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.

The court specifically pointed out that the respondent police had already completed the investigation and submitted the final report. Consequently, the judge reasoned that the apprehension regarding the tampering of evidence was no longer a valid ground for detention. The court emphasized the need to strike a balance between a fair investigation and the prevention of unjustified harassment or humiliation of an accused person.

Recognizing that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and a law-abiding citizen with no previous criminal record, the court decided to grant the relief of anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions.

Conditions Imposed for Bail

The court ordered that in the event of his arrest, Srinivasan Thangavel shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for 1,00,000 Rupees with two sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were attached to the order:

1. The petitioner must appear before the trial court within 15 days of the order.
2. He is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
3. He must regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required for the proceedings.
4. He shall not abscond from his ordinary residence and must provide proof of his address to the police.
5. He must not engage in any other criminal activities while on bail.
6. He is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

The judge concluded the order by stating that if any of these conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move the court for the cancellation of the bail.