The Court of the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), presided over by Sri Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), delivered a judicial order on April 6, 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. 2968/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to two petitioners—Sri Venkatesh P. (Petitioner No. 1) and Sri Krishna D. (Petitioner No. 2)—in connection with Crime No. 92/2024 registered by the Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint filed concerning an immovable property transaction and loan settlement:

• The Complaint: The complainant, Sri Harish V., alleged that he and his brothers owned commercial property at Chinnappanahalli Village and had availed a loan from M/s. Cholamandalam Finance. Due to financial setbacks arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, they could not pay monthly installments and consequently approached the petitioners through intermediaries (Azeez and Murthy Gowda) for financial assistance.
• Financial Dealings and Sale Deed: The complainant claimed that the petitioners paid ₹1,90,00,000/- to discharge the loan with Cholamandalam Finance and eventually disbursed a total of ₹4,90,00,000/- against an agreed lending amount of ₹5,00,00,000/-. However, the complainant alleged that the petitioners executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting ₹6,25,00,000/- and forcibly obtained an absolute sale deed dated December 1, 2022, instead of a loan security agreement. The complainant contended that despite offering repayment, the petitioners avoided them and demanded arbitrary amounts, prompting the police complaint.
• Civil Suit Context: Conversely, the petitioners pointed out that Petitioner No. 1 had already instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 671/2024 against the complainant and his brothers due to illegal interference, wherein the civil court had directed both parties to maintain status quo on January 25, 2024. The criminal complaint was subsequently filed as an afterthought following the receipt of summons in the civil suit.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1: Sri Venkatesh P., son of Puttasomegowda, aged about 39 years, residing at No. 116, 13th Block, 3rd Main, II Stage, Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru – 560 072.
• Petitioner No. 2: Sri Krishna D., son of D. Devegowda, aged about 56 years, residing at No. 67, Krishna Arya Elegance, ‘A’ Block, Flat No. 406, 4th Floor, 11th Cross, 9th Main, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru – 560 086.
• Legal Representation: Sri D. Narase Gowda, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and Civil Nature of Dispute: The defense contended that the petitioners were entirely innocent and that the dispute was civil in nature, stemming from a valid absolute sale deed executed for a consideration of ₹6,25,00,000/-.
2. Counterblast to Civil Proceedings: Counsel emphasized that the criminal complaint was a belated counterblast filed more than a year later only after the complainant received summons in O.S. No. 671/2024. The petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru with family responsibilities and are ready to cooperate with the investigation.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed formal objections along with the police report, arguing that the investigation revealed substantial financial transactions, including ₹84,75,000/- transferred to Accused No. 3’s account.
2. Risk of Evasion: The state urged that the petitioners were absconding, required for custodial interrogation, and likely to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses if granted pre-arrest protection.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

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

1. Existence of Civil Dispute: The court observed that the core controversy involved immovable property transactions and monetary agreements. The production of the order sheet in O.S. No. 671/2024 established that a civil suit between the parties was already active, indicating that criminal proceedings were invoked over a pre-existing civil dispute.
2. Nature of Offences: The judge noted that the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
3. Balancing Personal Liberty: Striking a balance between ensuring an unhindered investigation and protecting the accused from unjustified detention or harassment, the court held that the apprehensions of the prosecution could be fully addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

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 Venkatesh P. and Sri Krishna D. be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 92/2024 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Investigative Cooperation: The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation.
2. No Witness Tampering: They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. Continued Assistance: They shall cooperate with the police for interrogation and regularly appear before the court as and when required.
4. Residence and Address Proof: They shall not abscond from their ordinary residence and shall furnish address proof to the concerned police.
5. Non-Recidivism: They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. Jurisdictional Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. Monthly Attendance: They shall mark their attendance at the respondent police station between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM once a month (on the 2nd Sunday) until the filing of the final report.

(Note: Violation of any of the above conditions empowers the Investigating Officer to move the court for cancellation of bail.)