The Court of the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., 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. 2949/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to Smt. Nandini, who was arrayed as Accused No. 1 in connection with Crime No. 133/2023 registered by the Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 416 (cheating by personation), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 464 (making a false document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by one Smt. Roopa R. According to the prosecution case set out in the FIR, the informant was the owner of Property No. 33 and required financial assistance through a loan. Accused No. 1 allegedly approached the informant, offered to facilitate loan arrangements, obtained her original property documents, and secured her signatures on various papers at FBFC Finance Ltd., Basavanagudi, resulting in a loan sanction of ₹15,00,000/- in May 2022, which the informant subsequently repaid. However, the complainant later discovered that a much larger loan of ₹52,16,440/- had been raised against her property, leading to default notices. Upon inquiry, the informant alleged that after collecting her property documents, the accused persons brought another woman to impersonate the informant at the Sub-Registrar Office in Srirampura on September 28, 2022, and executed a fraudulent gift deed in favor of Accused No. 2. Subsequently, on December 17, 2022, Accused No. 2 executed a sale deed for the property in favor of Accused No. 3, who, in collusion with Accused No. 4 (finance manager), mortgaged the property to secure the heavy loan. Following these allegations, Chandra Layout Police registered Crime No. 133/2024 (Crime No. 133/2023).

Seeking anticipatory bail, the 42-year-old petitioner approached the Sessions Court through her legal counsel, asserting complete innocence and maintaining that she had not committed any of the alleged offences. The defense highlighted that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint regarding property transactions dating back to 2022, that the petitioner had only facilitated a legitimate loan through a finance company in 2022 which was duly repaid, and that the investigation primarily depended on documentary evidence rather than custodial interrogation. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, a woman with deep roots in society, and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The bail application was strongly contested by the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed a detailed statement of objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report. The state urged the court to reject the petition on the ground that the offences involved systematic cheating, impersonation, and fraudulent creation of property titles resulting in multi-lakh financial liabilities. The prosecution contended that granting anticipatory bail would cause the petitioner to abscond, tamper with evidence, or threaten prosecution witnesses.

Upon evaluating the rival submissions, reviewing the case records, FIR, and complaint averments, Judge B.G. Pramoda focused on the core points for consideration. The court observed that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Noting the significant time gap between the 2022 transactions and the police complaint, the court held that the core investigation relied on documentary records, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. Citing the protective guidelines for arrest and emphasizing judicial discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court concluded that the prosecution’s apprehensions could be suitably addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Consequently, the Sessions Court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court directed that in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 133/2023 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Smt. Nandini shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The release was made subject to several strict conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from the date of the order and furnish all necessary information and documents.
• She shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on Sundays for a period of two months or until completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, and cooperate with the investigation as and when called.
• She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, and shall not tamper with evidence.
• She shall not try to destroy evidence or commit any offence of a similar or other nature in the future.
• She shall not leave India without prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.