The court denied anticipatory bail due to serious allegations of forgery and the petitioner's non-compliance with previous bail conditions, emphasizing the necessity for custodial interrogation.

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.28/2024 of Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 181 , 419, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) pending on the file of II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-B.Mohammed Yusuff.

2. Heard Sri. Praveen.C., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Smt.

Manjula.N.Tejaswi, learned counsel for the applicant/Victim. Perused the materials 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 offence as alleged. Initially the victim who appeared through his advocate before this Court today had filed a complaint before the Doddaballapura Rural Police Station on similar set of facts. The petitioner had approached the jurisdictional Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the Court has granted anticipatory bail on 27.01.2024. Before complying the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail, the present case came to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Rural District on same set of facts in respect of the same documents. Therefore, it is clear that the victim and the complainant are bent upon to harass the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner had transferred Rs.3.96 crores to the account of the victim which is not in dispute. 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 and will co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

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 and therefore, he is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/victim opposing the petition submits that the victim is the owner of the property. Even though anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner in the complaint which was lodged by the victim, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed on him till today. The GPA deed said to have been executed by the victim is dated 27.08.2015, which was not a registered document. The properties were already converted into non agricultural land and the revenue records were standing in the name of the victim. Suppressing these facts, the petitioner got the sale deed executed in his favour on the basis of so called GPA deed showing the lands as agricultural lands. Some of the properties mentioned in the sale deed were not the subject matter of the GPA deed. The victim seriously disputes the execution of any GPA deed. The petitioner is in possession of the original documents which were concocted and forged.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in both the cases, i.e., registered by the victim as well as the present case. Both the petitions came to be rejected by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that offences are of serious nature and the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for 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 ‘Negative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

7. The allegations made against the petitioner for having committed the offence are of serious nature. The victim be