A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Ramachandregowda G.T., an accused in a significant fraud case involving the fabrication of documents and the illegal conveyance of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) sites. The order was delivered by Sri. Rajesh Karnam K., the 69th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-70), on June 24, 2022. The case has drawn considerable attention due to the scale of the alleged scam, which reportedly caused losses amounting to crores of rupees to the state exchequer and the BDA.
The Genesis of the BDA Site Allocation Scam
The legal proceedings originated from an investigation into Crime No. 14/2022, registered at the Sheshadripuram Police Station. The FIR was based on a formal complaint lodged by Srinivas V.T., a police officer with the Vigilance and Special Task Force (STF) at the BDA Head Office. The complaint detailed a sophisticated criminal conspiracy aimed at defrauding the authority and the public during an E-auction process.
According to the prosecution, the BDA had published an E-auction notification for the allotment of residential sites in Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 4th Block. The accused individuals allegedly manipulated the digital auction process by changing the block details from the 4th Block to the 7th Block in their online applications. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that specific site numbers were altered in the records; for instance, site number 2887 was fraudulently changed to site number 1068.
By creating forged and fabricated allotment letters and possession certificates, the accused managed to convey and register a prime site in the name of a private individual, Manjunath B.V. These fraudulent transactions bypassed legitimate auction protocols, resulting in substantial financial loss to the BDA and undermining the integrity of the state’s property allocation system.
Legal Arguments and the Petition for Bail
The petitioner, Ramachandregowda G.T., who had been in judicial custody following his arrest, moved the court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His legal counsel, Sri. B. Siddeshwara, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the multi-crore scam.
The defense emphasized several key points to support the bail plea:
- The investigation into the matter had reached a significant milestone, with the police having already filed the charge sheet (CC No. 16389/2022).
- The offenses alleged, while serious, are triable by a Magistrate and primarily relate to documents and financial transactions which the defense characterized as civil in nature.
- A co-accused in the same case (Accused No. 5) had already been granted bail by a higher court, establishing a ground for parity.
- The petitioner is a permanent resident of Madhugiri, Tumkur, with a stable abode, ensuring his availability for the trial and minimizing any risk of absconding.
State Prosecution Opposes Release
The learned Public Prosecutor filed a strong objection to the bail petition. The state argued that the nature of the crime was severe and had caused immense embarrassment to the State Government and the BDA authorities. The prosecution highlighted that the general public had been cheated of crores of rupees through this organized racket.
The state’s representative pointed out that previous bail applications for the accused had been rejected due to the gravity of the allegations. Even though the charge sheet was filed, the prosecution maintained that the accused should remain in custody given the scale of the forgery and the potential for him to influence witnesses or tamper with the voluminous evidence involved in property documentation.
Court Findings and Rationale for Granting Bail
After hearing both sides and perusing the case materials, Judge Rajesh Karnam K. noted that the investigation was complete. The court observed that the High Court of Karnataka had already granted conditional bail to other co-accused in the same crime. Following the principle of parity and noting that the trial might take considerable time, the court found that continued incarceration was not necessary.
The judge stated that whether the petitioner committed the alleged offenses is a matter that must be determined through a full-fledged trial. Given that the charge sheet had been submitted and the petitioner had permanent roots in the community, the court concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses could be adequately addressed through stringent conditions.
Final Order and Conditions of Release
The court allowed the petition and directed the Sheshadripuram Police to release Ramachandregowda G.T. on bail. The release is subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for a like sum. The court imposed the following strict conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days of the order.
- He is strictly prohibited from threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses.
- He must not indulge in any other criminal activities while on bail.
- Correct address proof must be furnished to the trial court.
- He cannot leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
- A cash surety of Rs. 25,000 must be furnished, which will be forfeited if he fails to attend even a single hearing date.
The court further clarified that if any of these conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move the court for the cancellation of the bail. The petitioner faces charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), and 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant or agent).