In a ruling that underscored the fundamental requirement for seeking anticipatory bail—a genuine apprehension of arrest—the LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72), rejected a petition filed by a construction businessman. The order, delivered on June 24, 2022, by Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.Misc. No. 5912/2022) filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner, Anjith Kumar, was seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a potential complaint lodged by one Smt. Sathyavani Yedla for alleged offences punishable under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background of the Dispute

The case arises from a transaction involving the sale of a residential building. The petitioner, a construction businessman, was developing a residential property. Smt. Sathyavani Yedla approached him and agreed to purchase the building for Rs. 83,00,000/-. A sale agreement was officially registered on August 24, 2021.

The dispute took a contentious turn following a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 22, 2021, which the petitioner and the purchaser had entered into.

According to the petitioner’s submission to the court:

• He received a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Smt. Sathyavani Yedla, which was subsequently dishonored.
• Another cheque issued by the purchaser, involving amounts of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,76,000/-, were also dishonored.

Following the dishonor of these cheques, the petitioner claimed he sent a legal notice to the purchaser, which was duly served. In a retaliatory move, the purchaser, Smt. Sathyavani Yedla, allegedly approached the K.R. Puram Police Station, Bangalore, and lodged a complaint against the petitioner.

Petitioner’s Grounds and Counter-Action

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Prauthvi Raj, argued for bail based on several key points:

1. Innocence: The petitioner claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated.
2. Harassment Complaint: The purchaser filed the complaint solely to harass the petitioner and pressure him in the ongoing financial dispute.
3. Counter Legal Action: Significantly, the petitioner had already initiated his own legal action by filing a Private Complaint (PCR No. 53837/2022) against Smt. Sathyavani Yedla for offences punishable under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), concerning the dishonored cheques.
4. Compliance: The petitioner expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The core of the petitioner’s argument suggested that the criminal complaint filed by the purchaser was a counter-blast tactic aimed at leveraging the criminal process to gain advantage in what was fundamentally a civil and commercial dispute.

Prosecution’s Objection and Judicial Scrutiny

The learned Public Prosecutor filed an objection, but notably, it did not confirm the registration of a criminal case. The objection simply prayed for the dismissal of the application, submitting that there was “no criminal case registered against the petitioner.”

The court’s scrutiny primarily focused on the maintainability of the application based on the legal requirement for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The provision of anticipatory bail is intended to provide protection to an individual who apprehends arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence. The courts must be satisfied that such an apprehension is genuine and founded on reasonable grounds.

The LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge made the following key observations:

1. Civil Nature of Dispute: The underlying issue appeared to be civil in nature, arising from a failed property transaction and subsequent cheque dishonor, which the petitioner had already addressed through his own legal action under the NI Act.
2. Lack of Apprehension of Arrest: Crucially, the court found that the petitioner had not produced the alleged copy of the complaint filed by Smt. Sathyavani Yedla. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to show any document to establish his apprehension of arrest. The court noted that “nothing is placed to show that the respondent police have issued notice to him to appear before them for inquiry.”

Since there was no concrete evidence to prove that an FIR had been registered or that the police had initiated steps indicating an imminent arrest (such as issuing a notice), the court concluded that the fundamental precondition for granting anticipatory bail—a genuine apprehension of arrest—was not met.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 (Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail) in the negative, the court ruled that without established grounds for the apprehension of arrest, the petition could not be entertained.

The court subsequently passed the following order:

The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

This judgment serves as an important reminder that anticipatory bail cannot be sought merely on suspicion or speculation of a future complaint. It requires tangible evidence demonstrating a reasonable and immediate threat of arrest by law enforcement authorities. In this instance, the petitioner’s failure to produce the FIR or any police notice ultimately led to the rejection of his plea.