A.Nagaraj vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 264 of 2019, registered for alleged offences under Sections 447 and 379(NP) of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute concerned a bricks chamber and land. The petitioners claimed the land originally belonged to Dhanasekaran, who leased it to the first petitioner via a registered lease deed dated February 8, 2018, after cancelling a power of attorney granted to his sister, Renuka. Renuka, despite the cancellation, allegedly executed a lease deed in favour of the defacto complainant. The petitioners asserted lawful possession and denied trespass and theft, stating a civil suit for permanent injunction was pending. The defacto complainant, supported by the police, argued lawful possession based on Renuka's lease, Pollution Control Board permission, and Sales Tax registration, and accused the petitioners of trespass and theft after failing to obtain a civil court injunction.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court noted that while the defacto complainant produced a lease agreement from Renuka, Pollution Control Board permission, and a Sales Tax registration certificate, they failed to produce any GST statements to demonstrate sales of bricks for the past four years. It was undisputed that the land belonged to Dhanasekaran, who had executed a registered lease deed in favour of the first petitioner on February 8, 2018. Furthermore, a civil suit filed by the first petitioner was pending. Considering these facts, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail, imposing specific conditions including reporting to the police daily for two weeks and as and when required thereafter, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not absconding. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala regarding the consequences of breaching bail conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the dispute over lawful possession of the bricks chamber and land, and the pending civil suit. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they are in lawful possession of the bricks chamber under a registered lease deed from the original owner, Dhanasekaran. They argued that the defacto complainant's claim is based on a lease deed executed by Renuka after her power of attorney was cancelled. They further submitted that a civil suit for permanent injunction is pending, and the defacto complainant's complaint of criminal trespass and theft is a false attempt to take advantage of the lack of an interim injunction from the civil court. Revenue/State's arguments (supported by defacto complainant): The defacto complainant argued that they are in lawful possession based on a lease agreement from Renuka, supported by permissions from the Pollution Control Board and a registration certificate from the Sales Tax Department. They contended that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case in the civil court, leading to no ad-interim injunction, and subsequently committed criminal trespass and theft.