BENGALURU – The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Harsha J and Manjushree KS in connection with a criminal case alleging cheating, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult. The court, presided over by Judge S. Nataraj, observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and that custodial interrogation of the accused was not necessary for the ongoing investigation.

The legal proceedings arose from Crime No. 11/2023 registered at the Hanumanthanagara Police Station. The petitioners, Harsha J (Accused No. 1), a 33-year-old resident of Muneshwara Block, and Manjushree KS (Accused No. 4), a 30-year-old resident of Banashankari, approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution’s case was built upon a complaint filed by a woman named Mamatha. According to the complainant, she was introduced to Harsha J following the death of her husband. She expressed her intention to sell her house, and Harsha J allegedly acted as a mediator, introducing her to other individuals, Ranjitha (Accused No. 2) and Jagadish (Accused No. 3), who expressed interest in purchasing the property for Rs 60,00,000.

The complainant alleged that a sale agreement was executed in favor of Accused No. 2 with a recorded sale consideration of Rs 38,50,000. While she claimed to have received Rs 25,50,000, she alleged that the balance was never paid. Furthermore, she claimed that Harsha J took the initial amount under the pretext of purchasing a new house for her but failed to do so or return the money. The complaint further alleged that the accused persons abused and threatened her when she demanded her funds.

Representing the petitioners, Advocate B.S. Manu argued that the allegations were baseless and that the petitioners were innocent. The defense highlighted that a civil suit (OS.4239/2021) had already been filed by Accused No. 2 against the complainant, suggesting that the criminal complaint was a retaliatory measure. The defense argued that Harsha J was merely a broker and Manjushree KS was his sister-in-law, neither of whom had received any money from the complainant. They further pointed out a significant delay in lodging the police complaint.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that the accused had a common intention to defraud the complainant. The prosecution argued that the recovery of the cheated amount was essential and that granting bail might allow the accused to threaten witnesses or commit similar offenses.

Upon reviewing the facts, Judge S. Nataraj noted several critical points in favor of the petitioners. The court observed the existence of the prior civil suit filed in 2021, which predated the current criminal complaint. The judge also examined bank statements provided by Manjushree KS, which did not show any evidence of funds received from the complainant.

The court’s ruling stated that it remains a matter of investigation whether there was an initial intent to cheat, but prima facie, the material available did not mandate custodial detention. The judge noted that the offenses punishable under Sections 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.

The court found that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru with a remote chance of absconding. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, ordering that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one surety for a like sum.

The court imposed several conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation. Harsha J and Manjushree KS are required to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before February 13, 2023. They are strictly prohibited from threatening witnesses or destroying evidence. Furthermore, they must appear before the trial court regularly during all hearing dates. The court explicitly stated that any violation of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail order.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s approach toward distinguishing between civil contractual disputes and criminal fraud, particularly in the context of real estate transactions where civil remedies are often already being pursued.