In a notable judicial order passed on April 2, 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. 2838/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to K. Chandra Obula Reddy in connection with Crime No. 102/2024 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 447 (criminal trespass), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the Mico Layout Police Station regarding an unexecuted property transaction and subsequent trespass.
According to the complainant, the petitioner (K. Chandra Obula Reddy) had acquired a residential flat—Property No. 602, TF-2, 3rd Floor, Stars Paradise Apartment, 8th Main, 4th Cross, Vijaya Bank Layout, Near Ayyappa Temple, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru (measuring 1,100 sq. ft.)—via a registered sale deed dated November 15, 2010, executed at SRO Bommanahalli from vendors T. Krishnamoorthy Naidu and Krishnaveni.
The complainant alleged that:
- The petitioner offered to sell the flat to the complainant for a total consideration of ₹36,00,000/-, promising to execute and register a formal sale deed upon receiving the full amount.
- Relying on this offer, the complainant transferred ₹36,00,000/- directly to the petitioner’s State Bank of India account.
- After receiving full payment, the petitioner delayed and postponed the sale deed registration under various pretexts while attempting to alienate the property to third parties.
- On the midnight of February 6, 2024, the petitioner along with unknown associates broke open the door locks and criminally trespassed into the apartment without the complainant’s consent or knowledge.
Following the incident, the Mico Layout Police registered Crime No. 102/2024 under Sections 420, 447, 506, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- K. Chandra Obula Reddy: Aged 43 years, son of K.N. Obula Reddy, residing at No. 2/68, Pulla Reddy Peta Village, Duvuru Mandal, Proddatur Taluk, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh – 516 175.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri K.C. Ravindra Babu presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- Innocence and Civil Nature of the Dispute: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent, that no criminal offences were committed, and that the dispute between the parties regarding property sale performance was purely contractual and civil in nature.
- Pending Civil Proceedings: The defence brought to the court’s attention the existence of parallel civil suits and private complaints (including O.S. No. 1360/2024 and PCR No. 3336/2024), demonstrating that civil remedies were already actively being pursued.
- Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged under Sections 420, 447, 506, and 120B IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, the sole earning member of his family, and holds permanent residential roots in Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
- Undertaking: The petitioner promised to cooperate with the police investigation, abide by all court-imposed conditions, and offer solvent sureties.
Objections Raised by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections alongside the Investigating Officer’s report:
- Prima Facie Case of Inducement and Trespass: The prosecution submitted that bank transaction receipts showing ₹36 Lakhs and spot inspection reports established a prima facie case of cheating and forcible trespass against the petitioner.
- Apprehension of Absconding: The prosecution expressed concern that because the petitioner resides in Andhra Pradesh, granting pre-arrest bail might lead to him absconding, threatening prosecution witnesses, or evading trial.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, civil suit documents, 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 Dispute Given Criminal Color
Judge Nisharani A.C. observed that the transaction between the parties stemmed from an unexecuted agreement to sell real estate and involved ongoing civil litigation (O.S. No. 1360/2024).
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent reported in 2020 (1) KCCR SN 29 (SC), the court highlighted the established rule that when a dispute is fundamentally civil in nature, continuing criminal proceedings or using arrest as a recovery tool constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
2. Nature of Penalties and Trial Evaluation
The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 420, 447, 506, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court held that the ultimate contractual and penal liability must be determined through trial rather than pre-trial detention.
3. Addressing Flight Risk Concerns
Addressing the prosecution’s concern regarding the petitioner’s out-of-state residency in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, the court held that his presence before the trial court and Investigating Officer could be easily secured by imposing strict conditions, including territorial restrictions and monetary bonds.
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 petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
- In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 102/2024 of Mico Layout Police Station, he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
- The petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
- If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above-stated conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand canceled.