In a notable judicial order passed on April 2, 2024, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF, allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2833/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Dharmendra Babu (Accused) in connection with Crime No. 0029/2024 registered by the Subramanya Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for an offence punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 39th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Sri Sampath Kumar, an employee of KASA Designer Company. According to the prosecution case, the complainant company awarded a construction contract for the “Wild Valley Resort” to the accused under a written agreement dated May 9, 2023, for a total construction cost of ₹53,000,000 (₹53 Lakhs).

The complainant alleged that the accused received an advance payment of ₹2,450,000 (₹24.5 Lakhs). However, the complainant asserted that the accused executed only 15% of the construction work valued at ₹613,518, leaving 85% of the project incomplete. It was alleged that by failing to complete the construction as per the agreed terms, the accused cheated the complainant company. Based on these allegations, the Subramanya Nagara Police registered Crime No. 0029/2024 under Section 420 IPC and commenced an investigation.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Dharmendra Babu (Accused): Aged 22 years, son of K.R. Mahadevaiah, residing at No. 26, 5th Main Road, 2nd Cross, Maruthinagara, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 072.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Narayana G. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Completion of Work: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offence. He asserted that he had completed approximately 60% of the construction work within 30 days and was actively carrying on the project.
• Non-Payment and Altercation: The defence submitted that when the petitioner requested progress payments for the completed work, the complainant verbally abused him and attempted an assault. When the complainant refused to release the balance funds, the petitioner halted construction work.
• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color: Counsel argued that the dispute arose out of a commercial construction contract and was purely civil in nature, with no fraudulent intent present at the inception of the agreement.
• Non-Capital Offence and Local Roots: The offence alleged under Section 420 IPC is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with fixed abodes and no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The petitioner promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation and submit to all terms imposed by the court.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a statement of objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Ongoing Investigation: The prosecution contended that the accused induced the complainant to part with a large advance sum of ₹24.5 Lakhs without completing the agreed construction work.
• Apprehension of Non-Cooperation: Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation might lead to non-cooperation, evidence tampering, or delay in trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the FIR, complaint, construction agreement details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Civil Nature of Contractual Dispute

Judge Kalpana M.S. observed that the transaction between the parties stemmed directly from a written construction agreement dated May 9, 2023. The court noted that any alleged non-performance or breach of contractual conditions gives rise to remedies before appropriate civil forums, and the complainant was giving a criminal color to a commercial dispute.

2. Documentary Basis and Custodial Interrogation

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2023) AIR SC 1570], the court highlighted that where a case is primarily based on documentary evidence and agreements, custodial interrogation is generally not warranted.

3. Application of Governing Bail Jurisprudence

The court reiterated the established doctrine that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” as articulated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447] and reaffirmed in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) Live Law (SC) 577]. The court noted that Section 420 IPC carries penalties triable by a Magistrate and does not attract death or life imprisonment.

4. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty

Holding that the petitioner has a fixed place of residence in Bengaluru with no flight risk or criminal antecedents, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be adequately safeguarded by imposing strict conditions—including regular reporting and territorial restrictions—rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Kalpana M.S. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 0029/2024 of Subramanya Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the 39th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of this order, making himself available as and when required.
2. He shall furnish address proof documents for himself and his sureties at the time of executing bonds.
3. He shall mark his attendance at the respondent police station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
4. He 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 Investigating Officer or the court.
5. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
6. He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
7. In the event of any change in residential address, the petitioner and his sureties shall intimate the same to the trial court immediately without fail.

Note: Violation of any of the above conditions would entitle cancellation of bail.