The LI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-52), presided over by Sri Yashawanth Kumar, B.A. (Law), LL.B., dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on April 1, 2024. The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2859/2024 denied pre-arrest bail protection to Sri Girish D, a court bailiff working in the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru City, in connection with Crime No. 1147/2021 (originally registered by the Bharathi Nagar Police Station and subsequently transferred for investigation to the Special Enquiry Division, CID, Bengaluru).
The petitioner faced serious allegations involving cyber and economic offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while the matter remained under active supervision and monitoring by the High Court of Karnataka.
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a comprehensive complaint lodged by one A.T. Ravikumar, the rightful owner in possession of a prime property measuring 5,272 sq. ft. bearing Property No. 7 (Old No. 6/1) situated on St. John’s Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru:
- The Land Grabbing Scheme: According to the informant, on April 30, 2016, accused individuals forcibly broke open the gates of his property, changed the building color, name board, and locks. When the owner lodged a police complaint, he uncovered an elaborate judicial fraud syndicate.
- Fake Eviction Suits: The primary accused persons (including John Moses and others) allegedly created fabricated tenancy and ownership documents, instituted a collusive eviction suit before the Small Causes Court (S.C. No. 148/2016) against a fake tenant named John Pinto in favor of a fake owner named Shanmugam Chettiyar, and secured a compromise decree.
- Execution and Extortion: Utilizing the collusive decree, they filed Execution Petition No. 515/2016 to obtain formal warrants of possession. After forcibly dispossessing the real owner, the syndicate allegedly harassed the informant and extorted ₹50,00,000/- to return the property.
- CID Probe and High Court Monitoring: The investigation revealed that this modus operandi was part of a massive, systematic land-grabbing scam involving over 1,200 similar fraudulent cases across Bengaluru where fake rent agreements and eviction suits were deployed to dispossess genuine property owners with the active connivance of advocates and court personnel. The investigation is currently conducted by the CID, with progress monitored by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 7714/2020.
Details of the Petitioner
- Name: Sri Girish D (Petitioner / Accused)
- Father’s Name: Dasaiah
- Age: About 33 years
- Occupation: Court Bailiff, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru City
- Residential Address: No. C-909, High Court Staff Quarters, NGEF Layout, Baiyappanahalli, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560038.
- Legal Representation: Sri Pranav Ullas Balekundri, Advocate
- Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, CID / State of Karnataka
Submissions Advanced by the Parties
On Behalf of the Petitioner
- Official Capacity and Apprehension: The defense submitted that the petitioner is employed as a bailiff in the Small Causes Court and apprehended imminent arrest by the CID police, which would severely prejudice his reputation and career.
- Readiness to Abide by Conditions: Counsel stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and offered to cooperate with any conditions imposed by the court.
On Behalf of the Respondent (State)
- Complicity of Court Staff: The CID Investigating Officer strongly opposed the pre-arrest bail plea, highlighting that while the petitioner’s name was not in the initial FIR, evidence linked him directly to the execution of the fraudulent eviction.
- Deliberate Omission of Duty: The prosecution contended that despite knowing the property belonged to the genuine informant A.T. Ravikumar, the bailiff intentionally served notices to the fictitious tenant John Pinto to hand over possession to the fake owner without verifying addresses, demanding identification proof, or reporting the glaring fraud to the court.
- Institutional Corruption: The state emphasized that as a court bailiff executing judicial mandates, his active or passive collusion in a multi-case land-grabbing syndicate constitutes a severe fraud against both individual citizens and the judicial institution itself, necessitating rigorous custodial interrogation.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
LI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Yashawanth Kumar evaluated the gravity of the allegations and recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:
- Active Complicity in Judicial Fraud: The court observed that although the petitioner’s name did not figure in the primary FIR, the CID investigation materials established prima facie grounds showing that as a court bailiff—the vital instrument responsible for executing court decrees—he executed eviction processes in favor of fake claimants without verifying identities or flagging obvious fabrications.
- Fraud Against Society and Judiciary: The judge underscored that the crime committed was not merely a private dispute but an institutional fraud targeting the judiciary by weaponizing court processes to evict genuine owners through fabricated litigation.
- Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: Given the widespread nature of the CID probe involving over 1,200 related fraudulent cases and the direct implication of court staff, the court held that custodial interrogation was indispensable and that the petitioner had failed to cooperate meaningfully with the ongoing investigation.
Final Court Order and Disposition
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 the petitioner Sri Girish D in Crime No. 1147/2021 is hereby REJECTED.