In a notable order passed on April 3, 2024, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-65), Smt. Kalpana M.S., allowed the pre-arrest bail petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2803/2024. The court granted anticipatory bail to 54-year-old A. Renuka in connection with Crime No. 140/2024 registered by the Peenya Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Criminal Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint lodged by Lakshmisha R., the son of Smt. Siddagangamma. The complainant alleged that during 2011–12, A. Renuka obtained an electricity connection from BESCOM (Peenya Sub-Division, Peenya) for a property bearing No. 107/08 by submitting concocted and forged documents projecting her mother-in-law, Siddagangamma, as the owner, thereby defrauding BESCOM.

Following the private complaint, the Peenya Police registered Crime No. 140/2024 against the petitioner, leading to pending proceedings before the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court, Bengaluru.

Defence Submissions and Civil Context

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sri V.K. Suresh urged the court to grant pre-arrest protection on several key grounds:

• Civil Dispute and Intention to Harass: The property in question (located in Sy. No. 107/8) was constructed jointly by the petitioner’s late husband, Rangaswamy, and his sister, Smt. Siddagangamma. A partition suit (O.S. No. 1833/2024) filed by the complainant and others was actively pending adjudication before CCH-26. The defence argued that the complainant instituted the criminal complaint solely to pressurize the family and encroach upon the property.
• Magistrate-Triable Offences: The alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Protection for Female Applicants: The petitioner, a 54-year-old woman, is entitled to the beneficial exercise of judicial discretion under the statutory proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.
• Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioner faced imminent threat of arrest and expressed full readiness to cooperate with investigating officers and abide by any court-imposed conditions.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, contending that the accused fraudulently obtained a public utility service using forged documents. The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the forgery and recovery of documents, and expressed apprehension that pre-arrest bail might hamper the ongoing police investigation.

Judicial Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Evaluating the record and rival arguments, Judge Kalpana M.S. answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative, anchoring the decision on fundamental constitutional and statutory protections:

1. Principle of Personal Liberty and Non-Requirement of Custodial Interrogation

The court emphasized the established doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447) that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception”, designed to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2023 SC 1570), the court highlighted that in cases primarily based on documentary evidence and offenses punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC, custodial interrogation is generally unwarranted when the accused’s presence can be secured for trial.

2. Statutory Relief for Women Under Proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

The court highlighted that the petitioner is a woman, bringing her within the special purview of the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. Referring to decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Kavitha v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No. 2509/2019) and Rathnawwa v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No. 100503/2017), the court observed that Parliament provided a specific statutory exception favoring women, elderly, and infirm individuals, allowing courts to exercise favorable discretion in bail matters even when serious offences are alleged.

3. Civil Disputation and Lack of Antecedents

Acknowledging the ongoing partition suit in O.S. No. 1833/2024, the court agreed that the dispute carried a predominantly civil nature between family members. Observing that the petitioner had a permanent residence in Bengaluru with no criminal antecedents, the court held that imposing appropriate conditions would balance individual liberty against the requirements of a fair investigation, as mandated in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022).

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions

Allowing the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court directed the Peenya Police to release A. Renuka on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 140/2024 upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the order date.
2. She shall furnish address proof, surety address proofs, and identity documents at the time of executing sureties.
3. She shall mark her attendance at the Peenya Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the completion of the investigation or for 3 months, whichever is earlier.
4. She shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing details to the police or trial court.
5. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission from the trial court.
6. She shall not involve herself in any criminal activities.
7. The petitioner and her sureties shall promptly intimate any change in residential address to the trial court without fail.