The LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Shailesh Siroya, the Managing Director of M/s Bal Pharma Limited, in connection with a criminal case involving a real estate commission dispute. The order, delivered by Judge B.G. Pramoda on June 23, 2022, provides legal protection to the industrialist who was accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy following a private complaint.
Background of the Dispute and Criminal Charges
The legal proceedings originated from a private complaint filed by an individual named Ravi N. before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru. Based on this complaint, the High Grounds Police Station registered Crime Number 47/2022. Shailesh Siroya was named as Accused Number 2 in the First Information Report (FIR).
The charges leveled against the petitioner include several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically:
- Section 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
- Section 417: Punishment for cheating.
- Section 418: Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.1
- Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.2
- Section 421: Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution among creditors.3
- Section 424: Dishones4t or fraudulent removal or concealment of property.
- Section 426: Punishment for mischief.
- Section 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
The Allegations: A Real Estate Deal Gone Sour
According to the private complaint, the dispute centers on a property transaction in Peenya. The informant, Ravi N., who is involved in the real estate business, alleged that Accused Number 1 approached him to sell a property. The informant claimed that Shailesh Siroya (Accused Number 2) was brought into the deal through a mutual connection, and it was purportedly agreed that any commission earned from the sale would be divided equally.
The informant alleged that he provided the property documents to Siroya and facilitated contact with the owner. However, he claimed that Accused Number 1 and 2 conspired with a third party (Accused Number 3) to sell the property without his knowledge, thereby bypassing his commission. Furthermore, it was alleged that when the informant confronted Siroya regarding the unpaid commission, the petitioner abused him and issued life threats.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
The counsel for Shailesh Siroya argued that the petitioner is a well-known industrialist and a pharmaceutical manufacturer of high reputation with deep roots in society. The defense maintained that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. They argued that the matter is essentially a civil dispute over a business commission, which has been given a criminal color to harass a respectable citizen.
On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor, supported by an Investigating Officer’s report, strongly opposed the bail. The prosecution argued that the offences are grave and that Siroya conspired to cheat the informant of a significant sum. They expressed concerns that if granted bail, the petitioner might abscond, influence witnesses, or destroy evidence.
The Court’s Reasoning: Civil Nature of the Case
In his analysis, Judge B.G. Pramoda observed that the core of the allegation is the non-payment of a real estate commission. The court noted that if the agreed-upon commission was not paid, the informant has a remedy for recovery through civil proceedings. The judge remarked that the allegations in the FIR appear to be civil in nature.
The court further noted that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. Referencing the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, the judge emphasized that unnecessary arrest and detention should be avoided, especially when the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not found necessary for the investigation.
The court found that Shailesh Siroya, being a permanent resident of Bengaluru and a prominent businessman, was unlikely to flee from justice. The judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
Final Order and Conditions for Bail
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of arrest in Crime Number 47/2022, the respondent police shall release Shailesh Siroya on bail upon the execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for a like sum.
The anticipatory bail is subject to several conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within three weeks and furnish all necessary documents.
- The petitioner must cooperate with the investigation as and when called for.
- The petitioner shall not threaten or induce any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- The petitioner shall not destroy evidence or leave India without the prior permission of the court.
- The petitioner shall not commit any similar offences in the future.
The court warned that any violation of these terms would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.