The court denied bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to the seriousness of allegations including substantial financial fraud.

ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2022 of CEN Crime Police Station, pending on the file Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 409, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. Abdulla Udyavar Bellikunhi.

2. Heard Sri. H S Santhosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the materials placed on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Since there is reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the civil dispute has given way to register the criminal case. It is stated that the petitioner on behalf of the informant had entered into a agreement of sale with accused No.2 and the petitioner/accused No.1 is only the agreement holder even according to the informant. He is not required for custodial interrogation. A civil dispute is given the color of criminal offence. There is inordinate delay in lodging first information by the informant. The informant has filed suit for specific performance of the contract before the Trial Court, which is pending for consideration. He further submitted that since there is delay in filing the suit seeking specific performance of the contract by the informant, it clearly establishes that it is only to pressurize the petitioner and other accused. The criminal complaint came to be lodged. Accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is 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.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. The petitioner on behalf of the informant who is the owner of the land in question entered into agreement for sale with accused No.2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated the informant to a tune of Rs.2,16,96,470/- as mentioned in the FIR. Inspite of that, both accused Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other and sold the land to accused Nos.3 and 4 in order to defraud the informant. He further submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of committing similar offences as one more case is registered against him with Kasargod Police Station for having committed similar offence. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have received more than Rs.2.16 crores from the informant and cheated him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Looking to the nature of offence committed by him, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the contention of learned HCGP and prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Ne