Y.L.V GROUPS vs STATE BY MALLESHWARAM P.S.
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16402 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. Y.L.V. GROUPS
REP. BY NAVEEN H
S/O HEMANTH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR ABBAINAIDU
COMPLEX, R/AT J C ROAD
OPP: TO INDRA CANTEEN HOSKOTE
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114
HEMANTH KUMAR (AS SHOWN IN FIR)
2. JAYACHANDRA H.N
S/O NARAYANAPPA H.N
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KAMMAVARIPETE
NAGAGALLI HOSKOTE
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114.
3. M/S YUNIFIVE GROUPS
REP. BY NAVEEN H
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT 8TH CROSS COLLEGE ROAD
BEHIND RAJA ARTS, MV EXTN
HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114.
4. M/S LNR INFRASTRUCTURE
REP BY PRAVEEN H N
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT KHB COLONY, SWAMI VIVEKANDA NAGAR
1ST MAIN, HOSKOTE - 562 114
(NOTE ALL ADDRESS ARE
AS PER AADHAR CARD)
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI VIKYATH B, ADV.)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
AND:
1. STATE BY MALLESHWARAM P.S.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. PEARLS PEOPLE'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION
REGISTRATION NO MH/1160/2022 PUNE
GATE NO 1056, MARUTI MANDIR
NAPTE VASTI, SHIRUR
PUNE - 412 208.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 149/2026
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT MALLESHWARAM POLICE
STATIONFOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(4),
336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 329(3), 61(2) AND 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 32ND ACMM
AT BANGALORE, QUA THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused nos.3 to 6 are before this Court in this petition
filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory
bail in Crime No.149/2026 registered by Malleshwaram Police
Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 329(3), 61(2), 3(5)
of BNS, 2023.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.149/2026 was registered by
Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid
offences against Anjinappa and others, based on the first
information dated 05.09.2026 received from Brij Mohan Pal S/o
Shyamo Pal. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioners
has filed Crl. Misc. No.10203/2026 before the jurisdictional
Sessions Court, which was rejected on 27.10.2026. Therefore,
they are before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits
that petitioners are bona fide investors in the property in
question. The documents made available to the Court would go
to show that they have invested huge amount of Rs.8 Crores
for joint development of property bearing Sy. No.56 measuring
7 acres 32 guntas situated at Budihala village, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Petitioners,
themselves, are the victims of the crime and they have filed a
separate complaint, based on which, FIR in Crime No.263/2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
is registered by Hosakote Police Station, Bengaluru District,
against the other accused named in the present FIR.
Petitioners, who have no criminal antecedents, are ready and
willing to cooperate for the purpose of investigation.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 - defacto complainant, who has
filed statement of objections opposing the petition, submits
that petitioners have conspired with the other accused persons
with an intention to defeat the scheme framed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The transactions between the parties was with
an intention to create obstruction for bringing the property in
question for sale in compliance of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similar attempts are made in various
other parts of India in respect of the lands which were notified
for sale by the committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and in the said case, even regular bails have been
refused. Investigation of the case is under progress and
accordingly they pray to dismiss the petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
6. First informant in the present case is said to be the
representative of Pearls People's Welfare Association, which is a
registered body formed with the basic object of preventing
unauthorized or clandestine sale, transfer or alienation of
properties of the company known as 'PACL Limited'. It appears
that the aforesaid company had floated a investment scheme
and had cheated crores of investors to the tune of Rs.56,000
Crores. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.13301/2015 had directed the Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI) to constitute a committee under the
Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M.Lodha, Former Chief
Justice of India, for the purpose of identifying and disposing of
properties purchased by PACL and applying the sale proceeds
towards repayment to investors, in accordance with the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequent to the
same, several further orders were passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court restraining the Company and others from
meddling with the properties situated in India and outside India
belonging to the aforesaid Company.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
7. Land bearing Sy. No.56 referred to herein above is one
such property belonging to the aforesaid company, of which,
accused no.1 named in the present FIR and his relatives were
erstwhile owners. It appears that the aforesaid company had
purchased the said land from accused no.1 and his relatives
under a registered sale deed in the year 2006, and
subsequently, the Committee appointed pursuant to the orders
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice
R.M.Lodha, had notified the aforesaid land for the purpose of
bringing the same for sale, and accordingly, even a sale
notification was issued. It is at this stage, the alleged
transactions in respect of the aforesaid land has taken place
between the accused in the present case.
8. The records would reveal that on 06.07.2026, three
transactions were registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Devanahalli, in respect of the aforesaid land. As stated earlier,
the aforesaid land was earlier sold by accused no.1 - Anjinappa
and his relatives to the company in the year 2006 itself.
Therefore, Anjinappa did not have any right over the land in
question after having sold the same under a registered sale
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
deed in favour of the company. The particulars of the three
documents which were registered in respect of the aforesaid
land on 06.07.2026 before the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Devanahalli, are as under:
(a) Gift Deed dated 06.07.2026 executed by
Smt. Subbamma - mother of Anjinappa - accused
no.1 in his favour.
(b) Agreement for sale dated 06.07.2026
executed by Anjinappa in favour of Dhanukumar
Nagappa - accused no.2.
(c) Joint Development Agreement dated
06.07.2026 executed between Anjinappa and the
petitioners herein, for which accused no.2 -
Dhanukumar Nagappa is a consenting party.
9. In addition to the aforesaid three documents, a General
Power of Attorney was also executed on 06.07.2026 by
Anjinappa in favour of the petitioners herein authorizing them
to carry out development work in the property in question. A
reading of the joint development agreement referred to above,
would go to show that on various dates starting from
25.03.2026, a total amount of Rs.8 Crores has been allegedly
paid to the account of accused no.1 - Anjinappa and accused
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
no.2 - Dhanukumar Nagappa by the petitioners herein.
However, the amount was not transferred from the bank
account of the partnership firm, and on the other hand, amount
was transferred allegedly from the individual bank account of
the petitioners. As on the date when the amount was allegedly
transferred to the bank account of Anjinappa - accused no.1
and Dhanukumar Nagappa - accused no.2, they did not have
any right or title over the property in question in view of the
fact that the said property was already sold under the
registered sale deed executed in the year 2006 by Anjinappa
and his relatives in favour of the aforesaid company. The
payments shown in the joint development agreement were
made much prior to execution of the said document. As and
when payments were made, there was no documentation and
not even a scrap of paper is produced to show that the said
payments were made for the purpose of development of the
property in question.
10. On 06.07.2026, mother of accused no.1 purportedly
executed a gift deed in respect of the land in question in favour
of Anjinappa and on the strength of the same, on the very
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
same day, he executes the agreement of sale in respect of the
land in question in favour of accused no.2 - Dhanukumar
Nagappa, and thereafter, the joint development agreement is
also executed on the very same day along with the general
power of attorney by accused nos.1 & 2 in favour of the
petitioners herein. However, payments were all made much
prior to execution of these three documents.
11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that amongst the
aforesaid three documents, the first document that was
registered was the agreement for sale between Anjinappa -
accused no.1 and Dhanukumar Nagappa - accused no.2. As
stated earlier, Anjinappa had no right whatsoever for executing
such agreement and even if it is presumed that gift deed is
valid, the same is registered subsequent to the registration of
agreement for sale between accused no.1 and accused no.2.
12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the documents
were created only for the purpose of defeating the proposed
scheme of bringing the properties belonging to the company for
sale for the purpose of paying back the money to the gullible
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
investors who have lost their investment in the aforesaid
company. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned Counsel for the defacto complainant, similar attempts
were made even in other parts of the country by creating
similar documents and in criminal cases registered in such
cases, even regular bails were rejected.
13. From the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is apparent
that the accused named in the present case have conspired
with an intention to cheat and thereafter, have executed
fraudulent documents as aforesaid. The allegations found in the
first information make out a prima facie case for the alleged
offences against the accused persons.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Anil
Sharma - (1997) 7 SCC 187 , in paragraph No.6 has observed
as follows:-
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who
is well ensconced with a favourable order under
Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
interrogation of a suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have
been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the suspected person knows that he
is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail
order during the time he is interrogated. Very often
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a
mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods
need not be countenanced, for, such an argument
can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The Court has to presume that responsible
police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with
the task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and Another - (2022) 17
SCC 391 , in paragraph No.12 has observed as follows:-
"12. ... In many anticipatory bail matters, we have
noticed one common argument being canvassed
that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
appears to be a serious misconception of law that if
no case for custodial interrogation is made out by
the prosecution, then that alone would be a good
ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to
be considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.
There may be many cases in which the custodial
interrogation of the accused may not be required,
but that does not mean that the prima facie case
against the accused should be ignored or
overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory
bail. The first and foremost thing that the court
hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence
should be looked into along with the severity of the
punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of
the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However,
even if custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail."
16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, during
the course of arguments, has submitted that the alleged offences are
punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years, and
therefore, petitioners are entitled for bail. The punishment provided
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62099
CRL.P No. 16402 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740872026
for the offences is one of the parameters for considering the bail
application and it is not the sole criteria. Since an attempt is made to
defeat the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the scheme
floated thereafter, and since the alleged offences has a serious
impact on the society, more so on the investors who have been
waiting for long time to receive the proceeds of the sale pursuant to
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion
that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail,
cannot be entertained. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK