The court grants anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for cooperation with the investigation while balancing the nature of the allegations.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.904/2025 of Sulthanbathery Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section

318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A7 order, reads thus:-

“The 1^st accused along with accused Nos.2 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention, deceived the defacto complainant by falsely claiming that the 1^st accused is the owner of a tea estate at Thalappuzha in Mananthavady having an extent of 283 Acres which is intended for sale and with the intention of cheating and unlawfully obtaining money from the defacto complainant, on 11.03.2022, the 1^st accused had executed an agreement with the defacto complainant fixing the price of the said property at 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine crore only) and thereafter, appointing the 2^nd accused as the Power of Attorney holder of the said property and executed a renewed agreement as further time required, subsequent to which, collectively obtained 4,10,00,000/- (Rupees Four crore ten lakh only) from the defacto complainant on multiple occasions, but neither registered the property in his name, nor returned the money, nor showed their willingness to transfer the property in his name. Later, the defacto complainant, having grown suspicious of accused Nos.1 and 2, demanded repayment of the money, which he had paid. The 1^st accused by his dishonest intention with the 2^nd accused. The 2^nd accused falsely assured him that an NOC could be obtained from the ROC in Bengaluru and that only thereafter, the property could be registered. Subsequently, the defacto complainant was taken to a three-storied building in Bengaluru without a name board, where he was misled into believing that it was the ROC office. There, the 4^th accused was introduced as an official and, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and another person, informed him that 65,00,000/- was required to obtain the NOC. Due to suspicion, the defacto complainant refused to pay the same and returned home. All these acts were with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and to get financial benefit for them. Therefore, after the above incident, he again demanded repayment from the 2^nd accused. When he asked the 2^nd accused whether he should present the cheque earlier issued by him, he advised him not to present it and claimed that the 4^th accused owed him money, further convinced him that he would collect the amount from the accused and repay the defacto complainant. Believing this representation, the defacto complainant was mislead and persuaded to accept a cheque for 4,10,00,000/- drawn from Bandhan Bank in the name of the 4^th accused in the presence of the 4^th accused concealing the fact that the 4^th accused already had existing liabilities with the bank. The defacto complainant was also induced into execute a sale agreement purporting to transfer the house and property standing in the name of the 4^th accused and his family to him. However, when the defacto complainant presented the cheque for collection, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thus, the accused persons unlawfully obtained illegal gain and committed the offence of cheating.”

3. The The case of the the petitioner, as narrated in Annexure-7, reads thus:-

“The 1^st accused, is one of the major shareholder of M/s. Makkimala Estate and the other share holders are his family members. The petitioner came to know about the encroachment in his property at the instance of an influential politician by name Ibrahim, as Ex MLA of Karnataka Legislature on a belated stage. Then the petitioner entrusted a lawyer to c