The Court of the LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 3, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3053/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to three petitioners—Sri Ramaswamy N. (Accused No. 1), Smt. Jayashree R. (Accused No. 2), and Smt. Neyaruthya R. (Accused No. 3)—in connection with Crime No. 150/2024 registered by the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint regarding a historical real estate agreement involving land parcels in Yelahanka:

• Agreements to Sell: The petitioners, who are the owners of property bearing Sy. No. 47/7 measuring 12 guntas and Sy. No. 50/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Ramagondanahally village, entered into negotiations and executed agreements to sell. An agreement was executed for Sy. No. 47/7 measuring 12 guntas for a total sale consideration of ₹30,00,000/-, against which ₹3,00,000/- was paid by cheque on March 11, 2011, alongside another payment of ₹2,00,000/-. Subsequently, another agreement dated April 12, 2010, was executed in favor of the complainant’s wife in respect of Sy. No. 50/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas for a consideration of ₹1,50,00,000/-, with advance payments totaling ₹10,00,000/- and ₹5,00,000/-, bringing the total amount paid by the complainant and his wife to ₹28,00,000/-.
• Acquisition by BDA and Dispute: The complainant alleged that the petitioners were obligated to execute registered sale deeds within 11 months from the date of de-notification of the properties by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). However, the lands were acquired by the BDA in 2018. When the complainant demanded a refund of the advance amounts, the petitioners allegedly refused to return the funds and issued threats, prompting the police complaint alleging cheating of ₹33,00,000/-.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Sri Ramaswamy N., aged 66 years, son of Narayanaswamy Gowda, residing at Ramagondanahally Village, Singanayakanahally, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560064.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Smt. Jayashree R., aged 32 years, wife of Karthik M.G., residing at No. 69, Sidlaghatta Road, Sairam Temple Street, Bhatrenahally, Bengaluru – 562135.
• Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3: Smt. Neyaruthya R., aged 29 years, wife of Prithwi Bandappa, residing at Ramagondanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru – 560064 (and residing at No. 652/8, 1st Cross, B.K. Nagar, Yeshwanthapur, Bengaluru – 560022).
• Legal Representation: Sri Prasanna D.P., Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Civil Nature of Dispute: The defense maintained that the entire controversy arose out of a civil property transaction dating back over 14 years, that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were minors at the time of the alleged transaction, and that the complaint was an abuse of criminal process for a civil dispute regarding agreement enforcement or refund.
2. Fabrication Allegations: Counsel pointed out glaring discrepancies on the face of the documents, noting that the agreement dated April 12, 2010, was drafted on a stamp paper purchased on June 18, 2008, in the name of a third party (Srinivasaiah), indicating that old signed papers were misused to fabricate a false criminal case.
3. Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioners expressed genuine fear of arbitrary police harassment and humiliation, undertaking to cooperate fully with any investigation.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed formal written objections and the Investigating Officer’s report, contending that the investigation was ongoing and that enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail could lead to witness tampering, evidence destruction, or flight from justice.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the complaint, agreement records, and rival submissions, Judge Narashimsa M.V. recorded definitive findings on the point for consideration:

1. Preponderance of Civil Remedy: The court observed that the dispute arose from an agreement to sell executed over a decade ago concerning lands that were subsequently acquired by the BDA in 2018. The court highlighted that the proper legal recourse for such agreement disputes lies on the civil side through a suit for specific performance or recovery.
2. Misuse of Criminal Process: The judge explicitly underscored that criminal law cannot be utilized as a coercive tool for the recovery of money or enforcement of civil contracts.
3. Documentary Discrepancies: Noting the anomalies in the stamp paper dates and the civil backdrop of the transaction, the court held that custodial interrogation was unwarranted since the matter was entirely documentary and contractual in nature.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Sri Ramaswamy N., Smt. Jayashree R., and Smt. Neyaruthya R. (Accused Nos. 1 to 3) be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 150/2024 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

1. Personal and Surety Bonds: The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum.
2. Jurisdictional Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. No Witness Tampering: They shall not threaten prosecution witnesses or destroy evidence collected against them.
4. Non-Recidivism: They shall not involve themselves in any kind of criminal offence henceforth.
5. Court Attendance: They shall appear before the learned Magistrate on the next date of hearing.
6. Investigative Cooperation: They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before April 18, 2024, and cooperate with the investigation in all respects.