This criminal petition by petitioners accused of cheating sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a property dispute case. The court dismissed the petition, holding that prima-facie evidence existed and serious allegations prevented granting anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5887/2021
BETWEEN :
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: R/AT NO.11, 8TH CROSS N.R. COLONY, BENGALURU-560028.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATHYANARAYAN S. CHALKE., ADV. FOR SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADV.)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU CITY-560062 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP (PH))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.255/2020 OF KONANAKUNTE P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O R D E R
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.255/2020 of Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-D.Srinivasa.
that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. They are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Infact, the petitioners are the owners of the landed property bearing
3
Sy.No.61/1C, measuring 01 acre 18 guntas, situated at Billekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The informant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the said property and agreed to pay consideration amount of Rs.37,89,72,000/- and the agreement was entered into on 25.02.2015. As per the agreement, total sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) was paid as advance. The informant entered into ‘Deed of Assignment’ with two other persons without the knowledge of these petitioners. When the petitioners came to know about these developments, the legal notice was issued during November-2020 to the informant calling upon cancellation of ‘Agreement of Sale’ dated 25.02.2015 and also the ‘Deed of Assignment’ dated 29.05.2015. In the meantime, the informant lodged the present complaint making false allegations. Section 420 of IPC is not at all attracted to the facts of the case. Infact, petitioner No.1 was taken to police station and he was made to issue two cheques for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each, similarly two cheques from petitioner No.2 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-
4
each and two cheques from the mother of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each was also taken and a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement dated 19-01-2021 was entered into between the parties. Since the document was executed in the presence of the police officials and others, the petitioners have put their signatures under duress. Subsequently, the document was notarized. The petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. They are ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Officer to assist him. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.
5
by the petitioners in paragraph No.6 to the petition is without any basis. Looking to the allegations made in the petition, it appears that the police have forced the petitioners to execute the memorandum of document which is styled as Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement and forced the petitioners and their mother to execute several cheques for crores of rupees. When such contentions could not be substantiated by the petitioners, they cannot seek anticipatory bail. The nature of allegations made against the petitioners require them for interrogation, as the value of the property, even as per the ‘Agreement of Sale’ entered into during the year 2015 is nearly Rs.38 crores. Under such circumstances, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and they may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
7
Assignment’ and ‘Memorandum of
Understanding/Agreement were came into existence and several cheques for crores of rupees appears to have been issued between the parties. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the petitioners are required to be interrogated.
negative. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
Whether the prima-facie evidence disclosed by the FIR requires interrogation and makes it unfit for anticipatory bail?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MR. G. GANESH
MR. SUBRAMANYAM GURUNATH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
