Anticipatory bail granted when allegations are based on documentary evidence; custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary given the age and health of the primary accused.

ORDER :

S Vishwajith Shetty, J.

1. Accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.201/2024 registered by Ulsoor Gate Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 464 , 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 of IPC, are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 482 of BNSS , 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.201/2024 was registered by Ulsoor Gate Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein based on the first information received from Rajanikanth - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru City. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioners had filed Crl. Misc. No.8325/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 27.09.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute involved is purely civil in nature. By giving a criminal texture to the same, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners. The allegations found in the first information are based on documentary evidence and petitioners and ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Considering the nature of allegations found in the FIR, their custodial interrogation is not necessary. Accused no.1 is aged about 81 years and his health is also not good. Learned Counsel accused nos.2 & 3 has submitted that accused nos.2 & 3 are bona fide purchasers of land from accused no.1. Accordingly, they pray to allow the petitions.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant who has filed his statement of objections, have opposed the petition. They submit that accused no.1 has taken compensation in respect of his portion of the land which was acquired by the BDA and he also has received an incentive site granted to him and he is enjoying the same. Thereafter, he has executed a fraudulent sale deed based on a fraudulent 11-E sketch in favour of accused nos.2 & 3. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant submits that for the purpose of executing the fraudulent sale deed, the conversion order in respect of the land belonging to the defacto complainant was utilized. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petitions.

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it appears that BDA had acquired land bearing Sy. No.30 of Sonenahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas out of the total extent of 5 acres 5 guntas, and also had passed an award in respect of the lands acquired on 30.10.2002. It appears that accused no.1 had received compensation in respect of 17 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. No.30 and also had received an incentive site measuring 20' x 30'. It is alleged in the first information that subsequently on 16.10.2023, accused no.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of accused nos.2 & 3 in respect of the aforesaid land for which he had received compensation from the BDA based on the fraudulent 11-E sketch, and thereby accused committed the alleged offences.

7. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the entire allegations found in the first information is based on documentary evidence. All the documents are very much available in the office of the BDA as well as in the office of the Sub-Registrar where the aforesaid sale deed dated 16.10.2023 was executed by accused no.1 in favour of accused nos.2 & 3. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the said alleged off