Land Buyer And Two Sale-Deed Witnesses Get Pre-Arrest Bail In Alleged Land-Owner Impersonation Case: Karnataka HC

The complainant and his brother alleged that, after discovering that their names had been removed from the RTC for land they owned, they obtained sale-deed records and found a purported sale deed executed in February 2026 in favour of accused No. 2.

They denied executing the deed or receiving its consideration and alleged that unknown persons had impersonated them.

Accused Nos. 2, 9 and 10 sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 171/2026, registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 335, 336(2), 337, 340(1), 340(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Accused No. 2 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser who had paid consideration; accused Nos. 9 and 10 said they were only attesting witnesses and were not beneficiaries.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged impersonation and forged documents and the ongoing investigation.

The Court considered the petitions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning anticipatory bail.

It also considered the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 335, 336(2), 337, 340(1), 340(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court cited no precedent or further legal test; its stated considerations were the nature and gravity of the allegations and the petitioners’ willingness to comply with conditions.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that accused No. 1 had created a fabricated sale deed and sold the property to accused No. 2, who was its beneficiary.

It noted accused No. 2’s claim that he had paid consideration, including his counsel’s submission of online and cash payments totalling ₹27,00,000, and recorded his undertaking not to exercise rights over the property under the sale deed and to pursue appropriate proceedings against the person who impersonated the owner and received the money.

The Court considered whether the petitioners had cheated the complainant or forged the deed through impersonation to be matters for trial, and, taking account of the allegations and the petitioners’ willingness to comply with conditions, found anticipatory bail appropriate.

Bail was subject to conditions, including a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, attendance before the Trial Court, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, restrictions on leaving the police-station jurisdiction, and weekly attendance before the investigating officer for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier.

The Court stated that the observations were only for disposal of the petitions and that breach of the conditions could support an application for cancellation of bail.