- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7955 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRIDHARA R S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRA V AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT A.R.NO.52, GANESH PALYA, SHARADA WOMEN COLLEGE, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO THIS HON'BLE COURT. 2. SRI. M.B. DATTU S/O M.S. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR MANAGER, HDFC BANK PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, RASTHROTHANA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.10927/2024 BY ALLOWING THE CRL.MISC.NO.3142/2025, DATED 27.05.2025, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU, ALONG WITH GRANTING OTHER NECESSARY RELIEFS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed being aggrieved by the cancellation of bail by the order of the court below, thereby canceling the bail obtained by the petitioner herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, would submit that the petitioner, who is only a subsequent transferee of the property in question, has been unnecessarily roped into criminal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 proceedings pursuant to a complaint lodged by respondent No.2/Bank. It is contended that the petitioner, acting bona fide, had purchased the disputed property and thereafter approached respondent No.2/Bank with a request for sanction of a housing loan to finance the purchase of a residential bungalow bearing Plot No.25. The Bank, upon receipt of the petitioner’s application, processed the same in the ordinary course, subjected the documents to its usual scrutiny and verification, and ultimately sanctioned a housing loan to the tune of Rs.3,25,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. It is further urged that the petitioner, in pursuance of the sanction, completed the requisite documentation process, executed the loan agreement along with other connected instruments, and thereafter the transaction was treated as duly concluded by the Bank. 3. However, the record would indicate that subsequently respondent No.2/Bank received a communication from the Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 calling for details of the aforesaid loan transaction. The said communication disclosed that there existed a discrepancy in the identity of the vendor, inasmuch as the sale deed presented by the petitioner showed the seller’s name as Rohit Shetty, whereas the original records traced the ownership to one Rohit Patel. It was in the backdrop of this revelation that respondent No.2/Bank undertook an internal verification exercise and, on retrieving a copy of the registered sale deed executed before the Sub- Registrar, Banaswadi, came to the conclusion that the transaction was vitiated by fraud, which led to the lodging of the present complaint. 4. On learning of the registration of the crime, the petitioner promptly moved the jurisdictional court seeking relief of bail, and the learned Sessions Court was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions. It transpires from the record that respondent No.2/Bank, having noticed that the petitioner was employed at Abu Dhabi, thereafter sought cancellation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 bail on the ground that the said fact of overseas employment had not been disclosed to the Court at the time of consideration of the bail application. While the petitioner had secured anticipatory bail earlier, one of the express conditions imposed therein was that the petitioner should not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Notwithstanding such condition, it came to light that the petitioner continued his employment abroad. The petitioner, in order to obviate the hardship, moved an application seeking relaxation of the said condition; however, the same came to be negatived by the Court. On the contrary, the application filed by the Bank seeking cancellation of bail was allowed. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the petitioner’s request for relaxation and simultaneously allowing the Bank’s plea for cancellation, recorded a categorical finding that the investigation was still pending and that securing the presence of the petitioner, who was admittedly employed in Abu Dhabi, would pose a serious - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 impediment for the investigating officer in completing the investigation. It was further held that the disobedience and non-compliance of condition No.4 of the bail order, which restrained the petitioner from leaving the jurisdiction, had the potential of hampering the progress of investigation. It is precisely on these considerations that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to cancel the anticipatory bail granted earlier. 6. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by both sides that the investigating officer has since completed the investigation and a final report has already been filed before the competent Court. The learned High Court Government Pleader, while not disputing this factual development, would submit that the cancellation of bail was premised primarily on the necessity of securing the presence of the petitioner during the investigation, and now that the charge-sheet stands filed, the petitioner is not remediless. It is always open to the petitioner, in view of the changed circumstances, to move a fresh application - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 for bail, which shall be considered on its own merits by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law. 7. This Court finds considerable force in the submission advanced by the learned HCGP. Once the investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet is placed before the Court, the very basis on which the earlier bail order was cancelled does not survive. Consequently, it is for the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a fresh bail application before the learned Sessions Judge. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has not committed a single default in the payment of equated monthly instalments (EMIs) to respondent No.2/Bank is concerned, this Court is of the clear view that such compliance with civil obligations arising out of the loan transaction is wholly immaterial for adjudicating the validity of the impugned order of cancellation of bail. Therefore, the said contention is not entitled to any acceptance at this stage. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33724 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2025 8. In light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, are also disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK