Bengaluru, September 4, 2023 – In a case stemming from a complex financial and ownership dispute over a commercial vehicle, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64) in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Chandrashekar.G. The petitioner had sought protection from arrest in connection with Cr. No. 46/2023 registered at Kalasipalya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with theft.
The order, pronounced by Sri. A.V. Patil, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), underscoring the legal complexities arising when the Registered Owner (RC Owner) of a vehicle takes possession of property claimed by a buyer from an auction conducted by a financing bank.
Background of the Dispute
The core of the case revolves around a TATA Super Ace vehicle, bearing Registration No. KA-41/B-5180. The petitioner, Chandrashekar.G, is the undisputed RC owner of this vehicle.
The petitioner had originally obtained a loan of $\text{Rs. } 3,30,000/$ from HDFC Bank to purchase the vehicle. A dispute arose over the repayment, which led to the bank initiating legal action against Chandrashekar.G under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act in CC No. 25029/2018 before the 26th ACMM, Bengaluru. The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that this case was disposed of on February 8, 2023, after the petitioner made the requisite payment.
However, the complainant in the present criminal case, Mr. Asgar Pasha, came forward with a private complaint (PCR No. 2445/2023) before the 8th ACMM, Bengaluru. Mr. Pasha alleged that he had purchased the same TATA Super Ace vehicle in an auction conducted by HDFC Bank on January 18, 2023, for a consideration of $\text{Rs. } 1,06,000/$. He claimed to have taken possession of the vehicle and its documents from the bank on the same day and parked it in front of his house.
The theft charge stems from the allegation that on January 25, 2023, the petitioner, Chandrashekar.G, took the vehicle from where the complainant had parked it. The complainant claimed to have subsequently confirmed that the petitioner had indeed taken the vehicle. After the Kalasipalya Police allegedly failed to register a case upon his initial report, Mr. Pasha proceeded to file the private complaint. Based on the referral from the 8th ACMM, the Kalasipalya Police registered the FIR in Cr. No. 46/2023 against the petitioner for the offence of theft.
Petitioner’s Defense and Apprehension of Arrest
In his petition for anticipatory bail, Chandrashekar.G adamantly denied committing any offence. His primary defense was his status as the Registered Owner (RC Owner) of the vehicle. He claimed he was completely unaware of the alleged auction sale conducted by HDFC Bank to the complainant. He argued that since he is the rightful owner, the charge of theft, which requires dishonest intention to take property out of the possession of another without consent, is questionable.
Fearing arrest by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) following the registration of the FIR, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court. He assured the court that he is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, ready to furnish surety, and willing to abide by all conditions imposed, demonstrating his commitment to cooperate with the legal process.
Prosecution’s Objection
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, asserting that the materials collected during the investigation prima-facie disclosed the commission of the offence by the petitioner. The prosecution argued that the continued custody of the accused might be necessary for a thorough investigation.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
The court considered the arguments and the material on record. The judgment first noted that the offence alleged under Section 379 IPC, while non-bailable, is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, which significantly eases the standard for granting bail. Furthermore, the offence is triable by a Magistrate, suggesting a lesser degree of gravity compared to those triable by a Sessions Court.
The core reason for the court’s affirmative finding on Point No. 1 (entitlement to anticipatory bail) was the nature of the dispute itself:
- Disputed Ownership and Title: The judge acknowledged that the petitioner claimed to be the RC owner of the vehicle. The question of whether an RC owner can be charged with theft for taking a vehicle that is subject to a contested private sale (the bank’s auction) is a matter to be ascertained during the full course of the trial. The involvement and commission of the offence were deemed “yet to be proved.”
- Cooperation Assured: The petitioner’s assurance of being a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his readiness to furnish surety and abide by conditions effectively addressed the prosecution’s apprehension that he might abscond or tamper with evidence.
- Legal Precedent: The court concluded that, considering the facts, the gravity of the offence, the prescribed punishment, and the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident, it was appropriate to grant anticipatory bail while imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the investigation.
Conditions for Release
The court allowed the petition, granting anticipatory bail to Chandrashekar.G. In the event of his arrest by the I.O. in Crime No. 46/2023 of Kalasipalya Police Station, he is to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for $\text{Rs. } 60,000/$ (Sixty Thousand Rupees) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following key conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Court during the trial and co-operate for the disposal of the case.
- The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
- The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
- The petitioner must furnish the attested copy of his Aadhaar card and present residential address proof to the I.O.
The order explicitly maintained that the grant of anticipatory bail does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the police’s right and duty to investigate the charges against the petitioner.