The LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to K. Sridhar, a 51-year-old resident of Jayamahal, in connection with a complex property fraud case involving allegations of impersonation, document fabrication, and criminal conspiracy. The order, delivered by Judge Sri. A. Earanna, provides legal protection to the accused against potential arrest by the Kodigehalli police.
Background of the Forgery Allegations
The case, registered under Crime No. 260/2022, stems from a private complaint filed by a woman named Eshwari before the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM). The complainant alleged that she had legitimately purchased a property from one Krishnamma and had successfully updated all revenue records in her name, remaining in peaceful possession of the land.
The fraud came to light on September 26, 2018, when an individual named Anil Kumar informed the complainant that a sale agreement had already been entered into for her property. According to the complaint, individuals identified as Parikshith Yadav, Smt. Eshwari, and Soniya K. Yadav had signed a sale agreement with Anil Kumar on April 4, 2018, agreeing to sell the complainant’s property.
Upon further investigation, the complainant discovered a sophisticated web of impersonation. The agreement revealed that one Rakshith Yadav had allegedly posed as Parikshith Yadav, and another woman named Sharmila had allegedly impersonated the complainant, Eshwari, to execute the fraudulent sale agreement. The complaint details a coordinated effort to fabricate documents to illegally transfer property rights.
Legal Proceedings and Police Investigation
Following the filing of the private complaint, the Magistrate Court referred the matter to the Kodigehalli police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The police subsequently registered an FIR encompassing a wide range of serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
- Section 419: Punishment for cheating by personation
- Sections 467 & 468: Forgery of valuable security and forgery for purpose of cheating
- Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
K. Sridhar, named as an accused in the fallout of this investigation, approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, expressing fear of imminent arrest following the police report.
Arguments by the Petitioner and Prosecution
Represented by Advocate Sathish C., the petitioner argued that he is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case without substantial evidence. The defense emphasized that Sridhar is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with deep roots in the community, making him unlikely to abscond. They further asserted his willingness to cooperate with the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and abide by any conditions set by the court.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition. The state argued that the nature of the offenses—involving organized document forgery and impersonation—is grave and non-bailable. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might commit similar offenses, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, thereby hindering the trial process.
The Court’s Reasoning
In its analysis, the court noted that the crux of the case lies in the creation of fabricated documents and the personation of the legitimate property owner. Judge Earanna observed that the offenses, while serious, are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the penalty of life imprisonment or death.
The court referenced the Supreme Court of India’s stance in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, highlighting that bail decisions must consider the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at trial.
The judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner fleeing from justice could be managed by imposing strict conditions. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition and directed the Kodigehalli police to release K. Sridhar on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of a like sum. To ensure the integrity of the investigation, the following conditions were imposed:
- Cooperation: The petitioner must join the investigation and fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
- Witness Protection: The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses.
- Preventative Measure: The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offenses while on bail.
- Attendance: The petitioner must mark his attendance at the Kodigehalli Police Station once every 30 days (specifically on the second Saturday) until the final report is filed.
- Cancellation Clause: Any violation of these conditions grants the prosecution the liberty to move an application for the cancellation of bail.
This ruling marks a significant step in the ongoing investigation into the property syndicate operating through impersonation in Bengaluru’s real estate sector.