Bengaluru, April 10, 2024 – The LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., granted anticipatory bail to three members of a family—Byrappa, his son Ashok B., and his wife Smt. Lakshmi Devi—in a significant case of alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery related to land dealings in and around Tumkur.
The order, pronounced on April 10, 2024, in Crl.Misc. No. 3176 of 2024, allows the petitioners protection from arrest in Crime No. 836/2023 registered by the Mahadevapura Police Station. The petitioners were accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 419 (Cheating by Personation), 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property), 465 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for Purpose of Cheating), 471 (Using as Genuine a Forged Document), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 34 (Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Allegations
The case originates from a complaint lodged by a retired individual who met the principal accused, Ramesh and Geetha, through his sister’s neighbor in November/December 2020. Ramesh, who introduced himself as a Chartered Accountant and Real Estate Agent, along with Geetha, allegedly induced the complainant to invest his retirement funds in purchasing various properties near Tumkur.
Between November 2020 and mid-2021, the complainant and his family members allegedly transferred substantial amounts of money to the accounts of the main accused and other associates, including the petitioners.
Financial Transactions and Property Deals
The court records detail a series of transactions:
- In November 2020, amounts totaling over ₹2.55 lakhs were transferred to the accounts of Ramesh, Geetha, and Nethravathi.
- On November 9, 2020, the complainant issued SBI cheques for ₹1,05,250/-, ₹9,78,000/-, and ₹3,50,000/- to Geetha’s account.
Following the second lockdown in April 2021, the petitioners (Byrappa, Ashok B., and Smt. Lakshmi Devi, along with others) became involved, inducing the complainant to purchase various properties, including agricultural land in Kallukunte Village, Sira Taluk, and residential sites in Kallukunte Badavane.
The financial details presented show that the total amount allegedly received by various accused individuals from the complainant and his son amounted to over ₹60 lakhs, with the petitioners receiving specific amounts:
- Byrappa (Petitioner No.1): ₹1,00,000/-
- Ashok (Petitioner No.2): ₹90,000/-
- Smt. Lakshmi Devi (Petitioner No.3): ₹2,00,000/-
The crux of the complaint revolves around a transaction where the main accused, Ramesh, executed a Sale Deed for Site No. 151 in the complainant’s wife’s favour on July 30, 2021, for a consideration of ₹5,58,000/-, in the presence of the petitioners. The fraud was allegedly discovered when the concerned department rejected the application for Khatha transfer, revealing that the site sold was an Ashraya Site—a government-allotted site intended for the homeless or economically weaker sections, which could not be legally allotted to Ramesh, being a male.
Arguments for and Against Anticipatory Bail
The petitioners’ counsel, Sri. S.R.R., argued that the ingredients of the serious offences did not attract against his clients. They contended that any amounts received were merely transferred to the account of the main accused, Ramesh, suggesting they were not the direct beneficiaries or perpetrators of the fraud. They emphasized that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that the petitioners, being permanent residents of Tumkur and Bengaluru, would abide by conditions and cooperate with the investigation.
The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition, stating that the offences were grievous and non-bailable. The prosecution argued that the complaint averments prima facie showed the petitioners’ involvement and that the investigation was ongoing. Releasing the accused at this stage, the prosecution feared, would lead to them threatening witnesses, destroying evidence, absconding, and hampering the trial.
Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences but highlighted key judicial considerations for anticipatory bail. The court noted that the offences alleged against the petitioners were not punishable with life imprisonment or death. This distinction is significant as it removes the application of the most stringent bar against pre-arrest bail.
The court observed that the petitioners claimed to have merely transferred the money to the principal accused and asserted they were not directly involved in the alleged offences. While the case is still in the investigation stage, the court ruled that it cannot definitively be concluded at this juncture that the petitioners are involved in the alleged offences.
Crucially, the court decided that the apprehension raised by the prosecution—regarding witness tampering and flight risk—could be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions, particularly since the petitioners are residents of the addresses shown in the cause title.
Order and Conditions Imposed
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the court allowed the petition.
The Mahadevapura Police were directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, upon each of them executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety for the like sum.
The following specific conditions were imposed:
- The petitioners shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing.
- The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) whenever they are called upon for the purpose of further investigation.
- The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities.
- The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
- The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the court.
- The petitioners are required to produce permanent address proof documents.
The order grants the petitioners interim liberty while ensuring their cooperation in the ongoing investigation into the alleged land fraud.