In a significant judicial order passed on April 6, 2024, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3051/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Gulnaz Begum (Accused No. 1), Nasir Hussain (Accused No. 2), and Muddassir Hussain (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 20/2024 registered by the JC Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 415, 417, 418, 420 (cheating), 447 (criminal trespass), 448 (house-trespass), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons/means), 351, 352 (assault or criminal force), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a dispute involving a residential property bearing Municipal No. 69 (Old Municipal No. 9/1) situated at Muniswamappa Road, Marappa Block, 2nd Main Road, Munireddy Palya, Bengaluru, measuring 480 square feet.

According to the complainant, the premises had been leased to them under a registered lease agreement dated January 22, 2022, executed by the lawful successors of the late Abdul Shukoor, after paying an interest-free refundable deposit of ₹5,00,000/-. The complainant asserted that while they were in constructive legal possession of the property under a subsisting lease, the original landlords negotiated a sale of the premises with the petitioners without prior notice or consent.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners, claiming to be subsequent purchasers, made attempts to illegally evict them without following due process of law, giving rise to both a civil suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No. 5507/2022) pending before CCH-62 and the subsequent registration of criminal charges in Crime No. 20/2024.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Gulnaz Begum (Petitioner No. 1): Aged 52 years, wife of Nasir Hussain.
• Nasir Hussain (Petitioner No. 2): Aged 58 years, son of late Zaheer Hussain.
• Muddassir Hussain (Petitioner No. 3): Aged 28 years, son of Nasir Hussain.
• Address: All residing at No. 17, 3rd Cross, near Masjid, J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560006.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Naresh Babu R.P. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color: The defence highlighted that the controversy was fundamentally civil in nature, involving property title, leasehold rights, and tenancy possession, for which a civil suit (O.S. No. 5507/2022) was already pending before the court.
• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent, had not committed any criminal trespass or assault, and had never unlawfully evicted the complainant.
• Family Profile and Senior Citizenship: Petitioner No. 1 is a 52-year-old homemaker, Petitioner No. 2 is a senior citizen aged 58 years, and all petitioners are law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal antecedents.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under the IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Undertaking: The petitioners promised to abide by all terms imposed by the court and furnish solvent sureties for their regular appearance.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Prima Facie Material: The prosecution submitted that case records and private complaint allegations demonstrated a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, trespass, and assault against the petitioners.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might threaten the complainant, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or evade investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the FIR, complaint, civil suit details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Civil Dispute and Abuse of Criminal Process

Judge Nisharani A.C. observed that the entire dispute centered around real estate transactions, leasehold rights, and property possession, which was already under adjudication in O.S. No. 5507/2022. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in 2020(1) KCCR SN 29 (SC), the court emphasized that when the core dispute between parties is civil in nature, allowing criminal proceedings to proceed unchecked constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

2. Nature of Offences and Personal Liberty

The court highlighted that none of the offences alleged under Sections 120B, 415, 417, 418, 420, 447, 448, 324, 351, and 352 IPC carry sentences of death or life imprisonment. The court held that the ultimate criminal liability must be determined through a full-fledged trial rather than pre-trial detention.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Examining the cause title and background records, the court found that the petitioners were long-term permanent residents of J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru. The court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions 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, LXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Nisharani A.C. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime No. 20/2024 of the respondent Police, they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for each petitioner for the likesum amount.
2. The petitioners shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. The petitioners shall furnish their residential address proof and that of their sureties.
5. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
7. If the petitioners fail to obey any of the above-stated conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand canceled.