The Court of the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 5, 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. 2994/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to two petitioners—Sri Yatiraj S. Naidu (Accused No. 1) and Sri Kishore P. Manay (Accused No. 2)—in connection with Crime No. 86/2024 registered by the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 427 (mischief causing damage), 420 (cheating), and 448 (house-trespass) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a dispute surrounding the management and property of Dr. M.C. Modi Public Trust:

• The Complaint: The complainant, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of Dr. M.C. Modi Public Trust, alleged that on March 13, 2024, between 10:30 AM and 11:00 AM, Petitioner No. 1 together with accomplices broke open the trust gate and attempted to break a door on the pretext that Petitioner No. 2 had leased out the premises.
• Alleged Threats and Misuse: The complainant further alleged that when he resisted, he was ill-treated and threatened. The complaint stated that a few days earlier, space had been leased out to Mahila Sangha, which the petitioners and others violently opposed. Additionally, the complainant accused Petitioner No. 2 of falsely claiming to be the administrator of the trust, cheating the public by using the trust seal, and defaming the trust.
• Background Context: The petitioners maintained that Petitioner No. 2 is a sincere employee of the trust managing the hospital properties, and that numerous civil disputes, including Misc. Petition No. 196/2014 pending before the Chief City Civil Judge for the appointment of trustees and a civil suit in O.S. No. 777/2018, were ongoing between the parties.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Sri Yatiraj S. Naidu, son of Sampangi Naidu, aged about 51 years, residing at No. 210-43, 4th Cross, 2nd Stage, Karnataka Layout, Bhuvaneshwari Nagara, Bengaluru – 560079.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Sri Kishore P. Manay, son of Late Panduranga Manay, aged about 56 years, residing at No. 233, 15th ‘C’ Cross, 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru – 560086.
• Legal Representation: Sri B.M.S., Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Mahalakshmipuram Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Discharge of Duties and False Implication: The defense submitted that Petitioner No. 2 is a trusted, long-standing employee managing the hospital and trust properties to protect them from being misappropriated. Counsel argued that the complainant had no legitimate relation to the trust property, had failed in past attempts to take over the property, and had lodged a false complaint out of vengeance following the filing of prior police complaints against him.
2. Pending Civil Litigation: Emphasizing that multiple civil proceedings and trustee appointment applications were sub judice before the city civil courts, the petitioners contended that the dispute was civil in nature and that they were ready to cooperate fully with the investigation.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections contending that the offences alleged were grievous in nature and that the complaint averments prima facie disclosed involvement in mischief, trespassing, and cheating.
2. Risk of Tampering: The state argued that because the investigation was ongoing, releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail would create a risk of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and flight from justice.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the case records, civil dispute background, and rival submissions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Nature of Penal Provisions: The court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 427, 420, and 448 IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
2. Context of Institutional Dispute: The judge noted that the controversy arose out of deep-seated management and trust administration disputes, with ongoing legal proceedings (such as Misc. Petition No. 196/2014) pending before the City Civil Court for the proper appointment of trustees.
3. Custodial Unnecessity: Holding that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, that the petitioners had undertaken to cooperate with the investigating officer, and that all prosecution apprehensions could be addressed via strict conditions, the court ruled that pre-arrest bail was warranted.

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 the respondent Mahalakshmipuram Police shall release Sri Yatiraj S. Naidu and Sri Kishore P. Manay on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2024, upon each executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Court and Investigative Cooperation: The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.
2. Investigative Availability: The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. No Witness Tampering: The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, nor threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. Non-Recidivism: The petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activity.
5. Address Proof: The petitioners shall produce documents verifying their permanent residential addresses.