In a notable judicial order passed on March 28, 2024, the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH 70), Sri Hareesha A., B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2878/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to M.G. Gangaiah (Accused No. 1), octogenarian M.G. Lingappa (Accused No. 2), Jagadish M.L. (Accused No. 3), and Smt. Pankaja M.L. (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 449/2023 registered by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 423 (fraudulent execution of transfer deed), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120A (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation.

According to the complainant:

• The dispute involves converted land measuring 35 guntas situated at Survey No. 33/2, Srigandadakaval Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in which the Dayalan House Building Co-operative Society had developed a residential layout.
• The complainant purchased residential Site No. 69/A via a registered Sale Deed dated September 7, 2022, from the Dayalan House Building Co-operative Society and claimed to be in peaceful possession.
• The complainant alleged that the accused persons, relying on fabricated title documents (including a General Power of Attorney dated July 27, 2002), trespassed onto the layout, claimed ownership over the entire survey number, created fraudulent transfers in collusion with a director of the co-operative society, and committed acts of physical assault and criminal intimidation.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• M.G. Gangaiah (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 79 years, son of late Gangadharaiah (Gangegowda), residing at No. 110, RMV Layout 2nd Stage, 4th Block, MLA Layout, Bengaluru – 560 094.
• M.G. Lingappa (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 82 years, son of late Gangadharaiah (Gangegowda), residing at Mavinahalli Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District.
• Jagadish M.L. (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged 38 years, son of M.G. Lingappa.
• Smt. Pankaja M.L. (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Daughter of M.G. Lingappa.
  • Both Petitioners 3 & 4 reside at No. 7, 8th Cross, Near Gadimundanna Road, Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocates from Shiva & Shiva presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color: The defence submitted that the dispute pertained to genuine property title and inheritance conflicts over Survey No. 33/2. Multiple civil suits were actively pending before Bengaluru City Civil Courts, including O.S. No. 3343/2023 (filed by Petitioners 3 & 4) and O.S. No. 5819/2023.
• Existing Civil Court Injunction Orders: In O.S. No. 3343/2023, the 12th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, had passed an interim order directing all parties to maintain status quo over the subject layout property.
• Advanced Age of Principal Accused: Petitioner No. 1 (79 years) and Petitioner No. 2 (82 years) are senior citizens suffering from age-related ailments.
• Non-Capital Offences: The offences alleged under IPC Sections 420, 423, 323, 324, 468, 506, and 120A read with Section 34 do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
• Undertaking: The applicants promised to cooperate fully with the police investigation and submit to all court-imposed terms.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Prima Facie Land Fraud and Violence: The prosecution argued that case records indicated a coordinated effort by the accused to forge title deeds, trespass onto society layout sites, and physically assault property buyers.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail might lead to witness intimidation, destruction of land records, or delay in police investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the private complaint, FIR records, civil court plaint copies, status quo injunction orders, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Pending Civil Suits and Status Quo Orders

Judge Hareesha A. observed that the documentary evidence—including plaint copies and interim orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in O.S. No. 3343/2023 and O.S. No. 5819/2023—proved that the controversy was subject to pending civil litigation. The court noted that in O.S. No. 3343/2023, a competent civil court had already directed the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed site.

2. Impermissibility of Criminalizing Civil Litigation

Reaffirming settled principles of legal jurisprudence, the court emphasized that converting an ongoing civil property title dispute into a criminal case to force a settlement is impermissible.

3. Non-Capital Penalties and Senior Citizenship

The court highlighted that the offences alleged under IPC Sections 420, 423, 323, 324, 468, 506, and 120A are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract death or life imprisonment. Considering the advanced age of Accused No. 1 (79 years) and Accused No. 2 (82 years), alongside the genuine apprehension of arrest following the Magistrate’s referral order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court held that pre-arrest protection was warranted.

4. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty

Holding that the prosecution’s concerns regarding flight risk or witness interference could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

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. 449/2023 registered by the respondent Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 323, 324, 506, 468, and 120A read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent police are directed to release them on bail, upon obtaining a 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 prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences in the future.
4. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.