The court balanced the need for custodial investigation with the protection of the petitioners' personal rights in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri.Shankar G., the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.379/2021 of Hoskote Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

a complaint came to be lodged by Sri Ramanjaneya S/o late Chinnappa. In the complaint, it is contended that the complainant is the resident of Tavarekere Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District wanted to purchase the land bearing Sy.No.47 to the extent of 6 acres 19 guntas and in that regard, one T.L.Manjunath S/o. Lakshmaiah shown interest and petitioners have received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and thereafter, failed to execute the sale deed. Despite repeated demands, the petitioners and others failed to execute the sale deed and in that regard, the complainant met Sri T.M.Nagaraju, who said that the revenue entries in respect of the land is not mutated and therefore, sought for time for execution of the sale deed. When the matter stood thus, on 16.11.2021, again the complainant met Sri T.M.Nagaraju and enquired about the mutation of the revenue entries. Sri T.M.Nagaraju replied that the entries have been mutated and told them to visit the Sub-Registrar Office. However, when the complainant met Sri. Nagaraju, Sri. Ravikumar, Sri. arunkumar and Sri. anand, they told that Sri T.L. Manjunath had told that there is no necessity for them to visit the Sub-Registrar Office and he would register the necessary documents by himself. Thereafterwards, the efforts made by the complainant to set-right the dispute did not yield any result. The owners of the land have settled the matter in favour of T.L.Manjunath and on came to know about the same, complainant felt that he has been cheated and hence, lodged the complaint.

4. Police after registering the case, investigated the matter. The present petitioners did approach the District Court for grant of anticipatory bail in C.Misc.No.1918/2021. Learned addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District rejected the prayer by order dated 15.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition contended that the matter is of civil in nature. He further contended that it is T.L.Manjunath, who has actually cheated both the owners of the land and there are number of cases against T.L.Manjunath and therefore, the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. He also contended that the entire amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is not paid by cheque and portion of the amount is paid by cash, which is serious dispute and he does not know whether the agreement is still valid or not and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail. He also sought for grant of anticipatory bail on health grounds of the petitioners. To substantiate the same, the medical records are also appended to the bail petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition contending that the materials on record clearly depict that after having obtained the advance amount, the petitioners and other land owners have failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant but they have executed the sale deed in favour of T.L.Manjunath by taking sum of Rs.1.00 crore from T.L.Manjunath. When once the sale has already taken place in favour of T.L.Manjunath, it is a clear case of cheating and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as custodial investigation is necessary.

7. In view of the rival contentions and taking note of the magnitude of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mat