Bengaluru, July 2, 2022 – The LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64) at Bengaluru, Sri A.V. Patil, has granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners—Smt. Baseera, Mehaboob, and Smt. Mujasim—who were apprehending arrest in connection with a case involving multiple serious charges including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The bail was granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6079/2022, pertaining to Cr. No. 58/2022 registered at the Rajagopalanagara Police Station.
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused No. 1 to 3 in the case, were facing charges under Sections 417 (Cheating), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 418 (Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect), 465 (Forgery), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Allegations and Prosecution’s Case
The criminal case originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 20542/2021) filed by the complainant, which was subsequently referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
According to the complainant’s allegations, the accused No. 1, Baseera, was the absolute owner of a property—Site No. 7, measuring 40 feet by 15 feet, situated in Hegganahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk. The complaint stated that the petitioners (Accused No. 1 to 3) approached the complainant, reportedly through two brokers (Accused No. 4 and 5), offering to sell the property.
Following negotiations, the petitioners allegedly agreed to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/-. The complainant claimed that Accused No. 1 received an initial advance of Rs. 50,000/- and agreed to execute a registered sale deed within three months. Subsequently, the accused allegedly received a total amount of Rs. 10,25,000/- from the complainant on various dates.
The crux of the prosecution’s case is that the accused later failed to execute the sale deed. Upon enquiry, the complainant discovered that the accused had allegedly colluded with each other and fraudulently sold the same property to a third party named Venkatesh on April 29, 2019. The complainant further alleged that when he demanded repayment of the amount, the accused abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.
Defense Pleadings and Grounds for Bail
The petitioners, represented by Sri Avinasha P., vehemently denied the allegations, asserting their innocence. They contended that they are the absolute owners of the property in question and claimed that the private complaint was filed with malafide intention and by suppressing the true facts of the matter.
A key point raised by the defense was that the petitioners did not know the other accused (Accused No. 4 and 5, presumably the brokers) and had not approached the complainant to offer the property for sale.
Crucially, the defense sought parity with Accused No. 4 and 5, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court in Crl. Mis. No. 5436/2022.
The petitioners also highlighted personal circumstances: Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Baseera, is an elderly woman, and Petitioners No. 2 and 3, Mehaboob and Smt. Mujasim, have small children and are engaged in coolie work. They emphasized that they are the sole earning members of their respective families and hail from a respectable background with no bad antecedents. They assured the court of their readiness to abide by any conditions imposed for their release.
Court’s Observations and Final Decision
In the order, the court, upon reviewing the materials, noted the allegations of fraud and cheating involving the property transaction. However, the court also materially noted that based on the records produced by the petitioners, it was clear that the petitioners are the owners of the property, adding a layer of complexity to the cheating allegation.
The court acknowledged that the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC are non-bailable. Nonetheless, it stressed that they are “not punishable with death imprisonment.”
The court considered the petitioners’ status as permanent residents and their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and furnish surety. The judge observed that “The involvement of petitioner is yet to be proved. The truth is to be ascertained during the course of trial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by Magistrate.”
Ultimately, the court concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution could be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions. Given the facts, the gravity of the offences alleged, and the punishment prescribed, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the anticipatory bail.
The bail petition was thus allowed, directing the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the Rajagopalangara Police Station to release Baseera, Mehaboob, and Mujasim on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 58/2022. Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- They shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
- They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- They shall appear before the Court during trial and cooperate for the disposal of the case.
- They shall not commit similar offences.
- Petitioners No. 1 and 2 shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
- All petitioners shall furnish attested copies of their Aadhaar cards and present residential address proof to the I.O.
The order also explicitly stated that the grant of anticipatory bail does not limit or restrict the police or the investigating agency’s rights and duties to investigate the charges against the petitioners.