Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K.L. Muralidhar, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.121/2019 registered by the Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The factual matrix reveals that the complainant lodged a complaint on 30.11.2019 alleging that accused No.1 executed a registered sale agreement in favour of the petitioner and that they committed the aforementioned offences. The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was unaware that accused No.1 was not the lawful owner of the property. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were real estate brokers. The petitioner approached them to purchase a site and entered into an agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.64,80,000/-, paying an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, the sale agreement was cancelled and the petitioner received the refund of the advance amount. Therefore, the offences invoked do not attract against the petitioner. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submitted that the petitioner knowingly participated in the transaction despite knowing that accused No.1 was not the lawful owner. The court considered the submissions and noted that the sale agreement was cancelled and the advance amount was refunded. The court held that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and that the offences do not prima facie attract against him. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject to certain conditions including appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Entitlement to Pre-Arrest Bail - Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.121/2019 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC - The sale agreement was cancelled and the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was refunded to the petitioner - Held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the offences do not attract against him and he is not required for custodial interrogation (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy when the sale agreement was cancelled and the advance amount refunded.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in Crime No.121/2019, he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject to conditions including appearing before the Investigating Officer as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- cheating
- cancellation of agreement
- refund of advance
- no prima facie case
