In a notable judicial order passed on April 18, 2024, the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru, Sri Hareesha A., B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3063/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to M. Basavaraju (Accused No. 1) and M. Rudraradya (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 126/2023 (arising out of PCR No. 3337/2023) registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 149 (unlawful assembly), 415/417 (cheating), 416/419 (cheating by personation), 418 (cheating with knowledge of wrongful loss), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 441/448 (criminal trespass/house-trespass), 442 (house-trespass), 463/465 (forgery), 464 (making a false document), 468 (forgery for cheating), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 470 (forged document), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion when the complainant, Sri Vijaykumar, a resident of JP Nagar 7th Phase, Bengaluru, filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru. The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of FIR Crime No. 126/2023 at Mico Layout Police Station against 10 accused persons.

According to the prosecution case:

• The complainant owned a residential building containing multiple housing units located in Bengaluru. He was employed in Odisha and had entrusted the management of the property to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (M. Basavaraju and M. Rudraradya), who were his close friends.
• The complainant alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, without his knowledge or authorization, leased out 24 residential units in the building to various tenants and collected a cumulative lease consideration of ₹1,09,00,000/- (₹1.09 Crore).
• It was alleged that when the complainant inquired about the property, the accused falsely represented that no tenants had come forward to lease the premises. The fraud was uncovered when lending institutions issued recovery notices for outstanding property loans, prompting the complainant to verify the physical status of the building.
• After local police authorities and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Bengaluru South) initially declined to act, the complainant approached the Magistrate Court.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• M. Basavaraju (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged about 47 years, son of N.R. Mallikarjunaiah.
• M. Rudraradya (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged about 43 years, son of N.R. Mallikarjunaiah.
• Address: Both residing at No. 57, Arunagiri, 16th Cross, JP Nagar 4th Phase, Bengaluru – 560 076.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned counsel from M/s. Reddy and Reddy Associates presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Prior Ownership and Disputed Sale Consideration: The petitioners submitted that they were the original owners of the property from whom the complainant had purchased the land and constructed the residential building.
• Dishonored Consideration Cheques: The defence highlighted that the sale consideration cheques issued by the complainant to the petitioners had bounced, giving rise to an underlying commercial and monetary dispute between the parties.
• Power of Attorney Execution: The prosecution’s own records established that the complainant had executed a Power of Attorney dated December 11, 2020, in favor of the petitioners, authorizing them to manage and let out the property on rent/lease.
• Ground of Parity: Co-accused persons connected to the same case had already been enlarged on bail by the court.
• Documentary Nature of Case: The entire transaction relied on written instruments, agreements, and power of attorney records, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.
• Non-Capital Offences and Undertaking: The alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioners promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation and furnish reliable sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a statement of objections:

• Prima Facie Material: The prosecution contended that the petitioners exceeded their managerial authority, misappropriated over ₹1.09 Crore collected from 24 unsuspecting tenants, and suppressed the rental income from the true property owner.
• Apprehension of Absconding: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might evade investigation, tamper with documentary evidence, or influence tenant witnesses.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the private complaint, Power of Attorney records, lease documents, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Power of Attorney and Contractual Context

Judge Hareesha A. observed that case records confirmed the complainant had executed a formal Power of Attorney on December 11, 2020, entrusting the property’s management to the petitioners. The court noted that after executing the power of attorney, the complainant did not inspect the premises for an extended period, indicating that the controversy stemmed from a contractual arrangement.

2. Prior Ownership and Bounced Cheques Dispute

The court took note of the undisputed fact that the petitioners were the original landowners who sold the property to the complainant. The existence of ongoing disputes regarding dishonored sale consideration cheques issued by the complainant further reflected an underlying civil and financial disagreement between the parties.

3. Documentary Evidence and Parity

The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on documentary evidence (power of attorney, lease deeds, and bank transaction records), making custodial detention unnecessary. Furthermore, co-accused persons had already been granted bail.

4. Non-Capital Penalties and Conditional Safeguards

Noting that none of the offences under Sections 149, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 441, 442, 448, 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, and 471 IPC carry sentences of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate, the court held that the State’s concerns regarding flight risk or investigation non-cooperation could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions.

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, XXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Hareesha A. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 126/2023 registered by Mico Layout Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 149, 418, 419, 420, 448, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471, 415, 416, 417, 441, 442, 463, and 464 IPC, the respondent police are directed to release them on bail, upon obtaining their personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the police and trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.
4. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.