Homebuyers Paid Advances, Apartments Sold To Third Parties: Karnataka HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To S.A. Enterprises Representatives

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 5, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 325/2024 of Sampigehalli Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 342, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The first informant alleged that, after she and others had paid substantial advance consideration for apartments in a project developed by Unishire Homes, the petitioners entered into an arrangement with the developer and the apartments covered by the buyers’ agreements were sold to third parties; the petitioners also allegedly demanded money from and intimidated the buyers.

The petitioners’ anticipatory-bail application before the Sessions Court was dismissed, and their earlier petitions seeking quashing of this and similar FIRs had also been dismissed.

The State opposed bail, citing similar cases and the petitioners’ alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 342, 506 and 149 IPC.

The Court relied on its earlier orders refusing to quash the FIRs involving the petitioners and related accused, in which the allegations and available material were found to disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, including criminal breach of trust and cheating.

The order applied the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail by assessing the allegations, the petitioners’ role and their cooperation with the investigation; it did not set out a separate statutory test or cite a general bail precedent.

The Court considered the allegations that the petitioners, after entering into an agreement with the developer, were involved in the subsequent sale to third parties of apartments for which buyers had paid substantial advance consideration.

It noted that earlier orders had discussed the petitioners’ alleged role and found material supporting prosecution for the alleged offences.

The State’s submissions regarding multiple similar cases and non-cooperation with the investigation further weighed against relief.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court dismissed the criminal petition.