A Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to three individuals, including Manjunath.N and his mother Sarojamma, in a case involving allegations of loan-related fraud and the forgery of property documents. The order was passed by Sri. A.V. Patil, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, on April 15, 2024. The court observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and that the offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate.

The petitioners in the case, Manjunath.N (33), Sarojamma (50), and Sudha alias Amuda (40), sought legal protection following the registration of Crime No. 87/2024 at the Kengeri Police Station. The police had booked them under Sections 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations: A Loan Turned into a Sale Agreement

The legal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint lodged by Smt. Sathyavathi B.K. According to the complainant, she had borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from Manjunath during the Varamahalakshmi festival in 2023. She alleged that at the time of the loan, Manjunath had taken her signatures on blank stamp papers and collected original documents for two of her sites (Site No. 90 and 91) located at Ganapathihalli, under the pretext of helping her sell them at a higher price.

The complainant claimed that despite repaying the loan, the petitioners refused to return her documents. Instead, they allegedly produced a fabricated Sale Agreement, claiming she had agreed to sell the property to Sarojamma. The complainant asserted that the signatures on these documents were forged—a claim she supported by citing a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Delhi, which indicated the signatures did not match her handwriting.

Defense Arguments: Escalating Property Prices

The counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Raju.N, presented a starkly different narrative. He argued that the complainant had indeed borrowed money but had failed to repay both the principal and the interest. He contended that Sathyavathi had voluntarily executed the Sale Agreement in favor of Sarojamma as a settlement for the debt.

The defense further argued that the criminal complaint was a strategic move by the complainant to escape her contractual obligations. They suggested that the recent escalation of property prices in the area motivated the complainant to try and reclaim the original documents to sell the sites for a higher profit to someone else. They also pointed out a significant delay in filing the complaint, as the alleged incidents spanned from September 2022 to February 2024, yet the FIR was only registered on February 15, 2024.

Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning

Upon reviewing the submissions, the court noted that while Section 420 is a non-bailable offence, it does not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. The Judge highlighted that the truth regarding the repayment of the loan and the authenticity of the signatures could only be determined during a full-scale trial.

The court observed that the essence of the matter appeared to be a civil dispute over a property transaction. The judge remarked that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” particularly when the accused are permanent residents of Bengaluru with no prior criminal record and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The court found that the apprehension of the police regarding the petitioners absconding could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions.

Terms and Conditions of the Anticipatory Bail

The court allowed the petition, directing that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 each with one surety. To ensure the integrity of the investigation, the court imposed the following mandates:

1. The petitioners must appear before the Kengeri Police within 20 days of the order.
2. They are strictly prohibited from tampering with any prosecution witnesses.
3. They must appear before the court for all trial proceedings and cooperate with the disposal of the case.
4. They must surrender for investigation whenever called upon by the Investigating Officer (I.O.).
5. They must provide attested copies of their Aadhaar cards and residential proof to the police.

The judge clarified that this grant of anticipatory bail does not restrict the rights of the police to conduct a thorough investigation into the charges. This ruling provides a temporary legal shield for Manjunath.N and his family as the Kengeri police continue to probe the authenticity of the disputed Sale Agreement.