In a notable judicial order passed on April 5, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3025/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Smt. Mangalagowri C in connection with Crime No. 114/2024 registered by the Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the proprietor of Manjushree Interiors. According to the complainant:

• In 2022, while seeking a business loan of ₹2,00,00,000/- (₹2 Crores), a financier named Umesh introduced him to the petitioner, Smt. Mangalagowri C, the founder of Dhanabhvruddi Credit Co-operative Society.
• As security for the requested loan, the complainant handed over title documents pertaining to land at Survey Nos. 95/1 and 3/1, measuring 12,523 sq. feet, situated at Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru.
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner required an agreement of sale as loan security. Under this arrangement, the complainant acknowledged receiving advance payments across multiple installments between 2012 and 2022 totaling ₹2,30,00,000/- in cash, alongside ₹35,00,000/- via cheque drawn on Ujjivan Small Finance Bank. On February 25, 2022, a registered agreement of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner.
• The complainant subsequently alleged that the petitioner failed to disburse the promised loan amount, refused to cancel the sale agreement or pay the full consideration, and resorted to verbal abuse and life threats, thereby fraudulently securing title rights and cheating the complainant.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Mangalagowri C: Aged 58 years, son/child of Vasudeva Raje Urs, residing at No. 2068, 4th Main, 1st Cross, Judicial Colony, Yelahanka Hobli, GKVK, Bengaluru – 560065.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Bona Fide Real Estate Transaction: The defence submitted that the transaction was a genuine property sale agreement negotiated for a total consideration of ₹4,10,00,000/- (₹4.1 Crores). The petitioner paid ₹1,55,00,000/- as an advance sale consideration, with the remaining balance of ₹2,20,00,000/- payable upon final execution of the sale deed.
• Unexplained Delay in FIR: Counsel highlighted an inordinate delay of over two years in lodging the complaint. The registered sale agreement was executed on February 24/25, 2022, whereas the criminal complaint was filed on March 21, 2024, without explaining the delay.
• Default by Vendor: The petitioner contended that she repeatedly requested the complainant to fulfill contractual obligations and execute the final conveyance deed, but the complainant deliberately evaded performance and converted a civil contractual dispute into a criminal case.
• Standing and Gender: The petitioner is a 58-year-old woman, a founder of a credit co-operative society, and a long-time permanent resident of Bengaluru with no criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The applicant promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation, submit to all court 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:

• Ongoing Investigation: The prosecution argued that case records and registered instruments established a prima facie case of cheating and breach of trust regarding valuable real estate.
• Apprehension of Non-Cooperation: The prosecution expressed concern that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation might lead to witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or delay in trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, registered sale agreement details, delay in FIR registration, 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 and Contractual Nature of the Controversy

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that the dispute centered around a registered agreement of sale for real estate executed in February 2022. The court noted that contractual disagreements regarding advance payments, loan security claims, and execution of conveyance deeds are primarily civil in nature.

2. Inordinate Delay in Lodging FIR

The court noted that while the transaction occurred in early 2022, the formal complaint was lodged only on March 21, 2024. The absence of an explanation for this two-year gap weakened the necessity for immediate custodial detention.

3. Non-Capital Penalties and Protection Against Arrest

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. Holding that the guilt or innocence of the accused must be established during trial, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be safeguarded by imposing strict conditions—including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer.

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 full-fledged trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent Bagalagunte Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 114/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, on execution of a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever she is called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
4. The petitioner shall not involve herself in any criminal activity.
5. The petitioner shall produce permanent address proof documents.