Anticipatory bail denied due to insufficient proof of transaction and serious allegations of fraud.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

Accused in Crime No.63/2025 registered by Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi Dharwad for offences punishable under Sections 3 18 (2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.63/2025 was registered by Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi Dharwad for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 06.05.2025 received from Smt.Husnabanu Shirol. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5351/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 30.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

4. Allegation in the first information against the accused is that in respect of immovable property of which the first informant is the absolute owner, a fraudulent sale deed was executed and registered on 19.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner by an unknown lady who had impersonated the first informant. Subsequently, the petitioner has sold the said property in favour of accused No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that he was a bona fide purchaser of the aforesaid property from the first informant who has thereafter filed a false complaint against him. This Court had directed the petitioner to produce the sale deed dated 19.07.2024 which was executed in his favour and also the proof of monetary transaction under the said sale deed. From a perusal of the sale deed dated 19.07.2024, which is made available to the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that out of the sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the vendor vide cheque dated 11.07.2024 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Tarihal Branch, Hubballi. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce his bank account statement to prove the aforesaid transaction and on the other hand, he submits that the cheque was not presented and on the other hand, subsequently entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by him to his vendor by cash. The aforesaid submission is difficult to be believed. According to the prosecution, the person found in the photo affixed to the sale deed is not the first informant. Under the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner becomes necessary since he is the beneficiary of the sale deed dated 19.07.2024 which is executed by an unknown lady who had impersonated the first informant.

6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.