The Court of the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru City, presided over by Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF., delivered a judicial order on April 6, 2024, dismissing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3100/2024 denied pre-arrest bail protection to five petitioners—Smt. Anitha P. (Petitioner No. 1), Venkatesh R. (Petitioner No. 2), Naveen Kumar P. (Petitioner No. 3), Smt. Likitha (Petitioner No. 4), and Smt. Shamantha R. (Petitioner No. 5)—who sought protective orders in anticipation of potential criminal registration arising from a representation made to a public representative and forwarded to police authorities.

Factual Matrix and Representation Details

The legal proceedings arose from events surrounding property disputes and political representations:

• Representation to MLA: The petitioners approached the Sessions Court apprehending arrest based on a complaint dated January 4, 2024, lodged by one Smt. G.P. Anitha before a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). The complainant alleged that during an inspection of her property on the same day, she found unknown occupants residing there who claimed they paid rent in cash to Smt. P. Anitha, and further alleged that the petitioners had created fictitious tenancies and false documents regarding properties belonging to others.
• Administrative Forwarding: The special officer of the MLA forwarded the representation to the Police Commissioner, Mysore, and the Mandi Mohalla Police subsequently transmitted the papers along with a report to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru, prompting the petitioners to apprehend imminent criminal prosecution and arrest.
• Pending Civil Litigation: The record revealed that a civil suit in O.S. No. 6740/2017 was already pending between Petitioner No. 5 and ten defendants (including the husband of the complainant), reflecting an ongoing civil property dispute between the parties.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1: Smt. Anitha P., aged 39 years, wife of Venkatesh R.
• Petitioner No. 2: Sri Venkatesh R., aged 49 years, son of Ramaiah T. (Both Petitioners 1 and 2 residing at No. 16/1, 7th Cross, Yellamma Temple Street, Magadi Road, Bengaluru – 560023).
• Petitioner No. 3: Sri Naveen Kumar P., aged 33 years, son of Late T. Prasanna Kumar.
• Petitioner No. 4: Smt. Likitha, aged 27 years, wife of Naveen Kumar P.
• Petitioner No. 5: Smt. Shamantha R., aged 65 years, wife of Late T. Prasanna Kumar. (Petitioners 3 to 5 residing at No. 27, “Sri Raghavendra Nilaya”, 5th Cross, Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru – 560018).
• Legal Representation: Sri A. Dharmesh, Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioners contended that owing to the political representation submitted by the complainant and its transmission through administrative channels to the police authorities in Bengaluru, they faced a genuine threat of arbitrary arrest and harassment by the Chamarajpet police.
2. Civil Backdrop: Counsel emphasized that the underlying dispute was purely civil in nature, as evidenced by the pending civil suit in O.S. No. 6740/2017, and that criminal proceedings were being improperly invoked out of animosity.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Investigating Officer Report: The learned Public Prosecutor filed formal written objections alongside the Investigating Officer’s report, explicitly confirming that no complaint had been lodged and no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered against any of the petitioners at the Chamarajpet Police Station.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the petition, documents, and investigating agency reports, Judge Kalpana M.S. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Absence of Registered Crime or FIR: The court noted the categorical report submitted by the Investigating Officer confirming that no criminal case or FIR existed against the petitioners at the Chamarajpet Police Station.
2. Lack of Reasonable Apprehension: The Sessions Judge held that a mere representation submitted to a political representative which was forwarded to administrative authorities, coupled with the pendency of a civil suit (O.S. No. 6740/2017) between family members and third parties, does not constitute a concrete or reasonable apprehension of arrest for non-bailable offences.
3. Statutory Notice Provisions: The court observed that even if any inquiry were initiated regarding offences under Sections 368 and 420 IPC (which do not carry capital or life imprisonment), standard procedure mandates the issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. calling upon parties to cooperate, and no such notice had been issued or received.
4. Non-Maintainability: Concluding that the petition failed to satisfy the essential legal requirements and parameters governing pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the total absence of a subsisting criminal accusation or FIR, the court ruled against the application.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the Sessions Court passed the following order:

• The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 (Smt. Anitha P. and four others) is hereby REJECTED.