The 68th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Gurumurthy and seven other family members in connection with a criminal case alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy over a property transaction. The court, presided over by Judge Sri. Sabappa, observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the circumstances of the case.

The case originated from a complaint filed by one Sri. Ramu A.C. at the Konanakunte Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No. 168/2022. The petitioners named in the bail application include Gurumurthy, Bhagyamma, G. Santhosh, G. Indushri, G. Jagadish, Mrs. Prabhavathy, T. Venu, and T. Kavya. They were booked under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), and 417 (Punishment for Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Background and Allegations

The complainant, Ramu A.C., alleged that the petitioners owned significant parcels of land in Kembathahalli and Gollahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. These properties, measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and 1 acre 24 guntas respectively, were reportedly acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). As compensation, the BDA had awarded the petitioners certain sites.

According to the prosecution, the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell these allotted sites to the complainant and received a substantial amount of money. However, instead of fulfilling the agreement, the petitioners allegedly registered the sites in the names of third parties identified as Lokesh, Karthik, and Mallappa. The complainant claimed this was a deliberate act to defraud him of his money and property rights.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

Represented by advocate Sri. K. Nataraj, the petitioners argued that the entire dispute was a civil litigation dressed up as a criminal case. They contended that if a valid sale agreement dated April 2, 2019, existed, the complainant’s proper remedy was to seek specific performance in a civil court rather than using the police as a recovery or blackmailing tool.

The defense further argued that the complainant himself had facilitated the sales to Mallappa and Karthik and had already received considerations through those transactions. The petitioners claimed that they were being threatened for additional payments of Rs. 30,00,000 and had previously issued a legal notice to the complainant regarding his conduct. Describing themselves as illiterate farmers, the petitioners stated they were being victimized by the complainant who had allegedly created concocted documents to seize their rights.

Prosecution Resistance

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations. The prosecution argued that the petitioners had been absconding since the registration of the FIR and had not cooperated with the investigation. It was contended that the petitioners had committed a heinous offence by cheating the complainant of a large sum and that granting bail would allow them to tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or flee the jurisdiction.

Court Observations and Final Verdict

After hearing both sides, Judge Sabappa noted that there was a clear paper trail of legal notices and replies between the parties, indicating a long-standing transaction regarding immovable property. The court observed that the dispute centered on a breach of contract, which is generally civil.

The judge emphasized the legal principle that while considering anticipatory bail, the court must balance the need for a fair investigation with the protection of individuals from unjustified detention and humiliation. The court found that the offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate and did not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.

Granting the relief, the court ordered the release of Gurumurthy and his family members in the event of their arrest, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each and two sureties of the same amount.

Conditions of the Bail

To safeguard the interests of the investigation, the court imposed several conditions:

The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days.

They are prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence.

They must mark their attendance at the Konanakunte Police Station once a month on every second Sunday.

They are restricted from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.

The court warned that any violation of these conditions would grant the Investigating Officer the liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail.