The Court of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-45) and holding in-charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-70), Bangalore City, presided over by Sri Doddegowda K., B.A., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on May 7, 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. 2845/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to Sri Tyagaraju (Accused No. 11) in connection with Crime No. 346/2023 (subsequently registered as C.C. No. 3531/2024) of the Halsurugate Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending before the jurisdictional court. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a proactive police raid targeting document forgery syndicates:

• Credible Information and Raid: According to the prosecution case, on December 12, 2023, at approximately 5:00 PM, the complainant while on duty received credible information that a group of 8 to 9 unknown persons had fabricated duplicate identification documents, including duplicate Aadhaar cards, RTC forms, sale deeds, and mutation register extracts, with the intention of utilizing these forged papers to furnish court sureties.
• Seizure and Investigation: Acting on the tip-off, the police team along with officers rushed to the spot near Mysore Bank Circle on K.G. Road, seized the fabricated documents in the presence of panchas, and initiated a thorough investigation. Upon completion of the probe, a charge sheet was submitted against multiple accused individuals, prompting the petitioner (Accused No. 11) to approach the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Tyagaraju (Petitioner / Accused No. 11)
• Father’s Name: Late Chinnappa
• Age: About 47 years
• Residential Address: No. 232, 1st Main Road Side, Near Star Bazar, 7th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru.
• Legal Representation: Sri B.B., Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Halsurugate Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had neither directly nor indirectly committed any offence, and had been falsely implicated without any preliminary inquiry mandated by law.
2. Principle of Parity: Counsel emphasized that Co-Accused Nos. 1 to 10 had already been enlarged on bail by the Magistrate and Sessions Court, and the petitioner—standing as Accused No. 11—was fully entitled to pre-arrest bail on the ground of parity. Furthermore, because the investigation was already completed and the charge sheet filed, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections opposing the petition, contending that the offences involving forgery and cheating were serious in nature.
2. Risk of Interference: The state urged that releasing the petitioner could lead to the repetition of similar offences, tampering with evidence, or threatening the complainant and prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the records, case papers, and rival submissions, Judge Doddegowda K. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Completion of Investigation: The court observed that the investigation had already concluded with the filing of the charge sheet (C.C. No. 3531/2024), and since the case rested primarily on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was unwarranted.
2. Nature of Offences and Parity: The judge noted that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate and that Co-Accused Nos. 1 to 10 had already been granted bail. Citing the landmark rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Sathender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) regarding personal liberty under Article 21 and the rule that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
3. Addressing Prosecution Apprehensions: Holding that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution regarding potential abscondence or witness tampering could be effectively mitigated by imposing stringent conditions, the court ruled in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.

Final Anticipatory Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Sri Tyagaraju (Accused No. 11) be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 346/2023 (C.C. No. 3531/2024) of Halsurugate Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Investigative Availability: The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
2. Surrender Timeline: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
3. Court Appearance & Sureties: The petitioner shall appear before the trial court and furnish sureties to the satisfaction of that court within one month from the date of the order.
4. No Witness Intimidation: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to the complainant or other witnesses.
5. Non-Recidivism: The petitioner shall not commit any offences similar to the offences of which he is accused or suspected.