Former ISRO Official and Software Engineer Daughter Granted Bail in Konanakunte Police Case (Cr. No. 294/2023) Involving Sections 447, 420, 504, and 506 IPC
Bengaluru, September 4, 2023 — The LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), passed an order today granting anticipatory bail to two petitioners, Arvind R.H., a retired Central Government servant from ISRO, and his daughter, Smt. Meghana Arvind, a Software Engineer. The common order in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8206/2023 was delivered in connection with Cr. No. 294/2023, registered by the Konanakunte Police Station for offences under Sections 447 (Criminal Trespass), 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioners had approached the court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest following a complaint lodged by one Sri. Gopal.K.
The Allegations and the Defence Stance
The crux of the police case, as detailed in the FIR, revolves around an alleged illegal trespass and subsequent misappropriation of property. The complainant, Sri. Gopal.K., claimed ownership of site No. 104, Khatha No. 48, in Kothanur Village, which he had purchased through a General Power of Attorney (GPA). He alleged that during his 6-8 month absence, the accused persons trespassed onto the site and began construction.
The complaint names the petitioners as Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4 in a chain of transactions: Accused No. 1 allegedly sold the site to Accused No. 2 (Usha Venkatesh), who in turn sold it to Arvind R.H. (Accused No. 3). Following this, Arvind R.H. is stated to have executed a Gift Deed in favour of his daughter, Smt. Meghana Arvind (Accused No. 4). The complainant contends that all the accused colluded to “knock off his property.”
The petitioners vehemently contested the allegations, arguing that the dispute is fundamentally civil in nature and that they have been falsely implicated. They provided their own timeline of ownership, stating that Arvind R.H. first purchased the site No. 104 in 2003 and has been in possession ever since. He then executed a Gift Deed in favour of his daughter, Smt. Meghana Arvind, in 2017.
The petitioners highlighted that Smt. Meghana Arvind and her husband had obtained a bank loan of Rs. 58 lakhs and commenced construction on the site approximately 1.5 years ago. They stressed their strong ties to Bengaluru as permanent residents, their respectable professional backgrounds, and their readiness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Objection
The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, asserting that the petitioners had absconded since the incident and had not yet cooperated with the investigation. The prosecution argued that the investigation was still in progress and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) needed to record the statements of the accused and collect documents from the concerned departments. Granting bail at this stage, the prosecution feared, would lead to the petitioners absconding, failing to cooperate, and potentially tampering with evidence.
Court’s Finding: A Civil Dispute with Criminal Overtones
Justice Sabappa, after reviewing the bail petition, objections, and relevant documents including the FIR, Sale Deed, and Gift Deed, determined that the dispute between the complainant and petitioners is primarily regarding immovable property.
The court noted that the petitioners’ documents indicate that the first petitioner purchased the site under a registered sale deed in 2003, and subsequently gifted it to the second petitioner in 2017. Furthermore, the court observed that the second petitioner had mortgaged the property with TATA Capital and obtained a loan, indicating a degree of possession and a genuine transaction.
The court explicitly stated that the core issue—whether the petitioners created documents and obtained the property—requires a trial for reality to be ascertained. However, at this preliminary stage, the court observed that the allegations are largely rooted in a civil dispute. The Judge suggested that in case of encroachment, the complainant’s proper recourse is to approach the Civil Court by filing a civil suit.
Acknowledging the principles guiding anticipatory bail, the court aimed to strike a balance between ensuring a free and fair investigation and preventing the harassment, humiliation, and unjustified detention of the accused. Given that the alleged offences—Sections 447, 420, 504, 506 IPC—are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the Magistrate Court, the court ruled that the petitioners had made out sufficient grounds for relief. The Judge concluded that imposing stringent conditions would adequately safeguard the prosecution’s interests.
Conditions for Release
The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No. 294/2023. Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following seven conditions:
- Appearance Before IO: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order and cooperate for the investigation.
- No Tampering: They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
- Cooperation and Court Appearance: They shall cooperate for the investigation and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
- No Absconding: They shall not abscond from their ordinary residence and must furnish their address proof to the concerned police.
- No Offence: They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
- Jurisdictional Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- Police Station Attendance: They shall mark their attendance in the respondent Police Station between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM once a month, specifically on the 2nd Sunday, until the filing of the final report.
The order concluded by clarifying that any violation of the imposed conditions would permit the Investigating Officer to move the court for the cancellation of bail.