Dismissed¶49

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2025CRL.P/100375/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad bail refusal; CRL.P 100375/2025; accused No.3 Ajit Malame; Crime No.85/2022 Bailhongal PS; Ss.120(B), 395 IPC r/w S.25(a) Arms Act 1959; dacoity of Rs.4,68,00,000/- from cash van carrying Rs.4,97,30,000/-; Rs.32,00,000/- recovered from petitioner unexplained; TIP identification by CWs.16 & 17; prima facie involvement; bail denied, petition dismissed; trial expedited; Justice Venkatesh Naik T; 23-06-2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments. ¶49

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail denied; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner/accused No.3 should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.85/2022 of Bailhongal Police (offences under Ss.120(B), 395 IPC r/w S.25(a) Arms Act) pending before the Sessions Court, Belagavi. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

A prima facie case is made out that the petitioner (accused No.3) is one of the accused involved in the dacoity.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

This is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Investigating Officer recovered Rs.32,00,000/- from the possession of the petitioner (accused No.3) and there is no explanation for his possession of such a huge amount.ratio¶47
In the test identification parade, CWs.16 and 17 (driver and cleaner of the Bolero vehicle) identified accused Nos.1 and 2, which narrates the involvement of accused Nos.3 to 6.ratio¶47
The Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter in accordance with law, without unnecessary adjournments.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS) by Ajit s/o Sambhaji Malame, accused No.3, seeking regular bail in Crime No.85/2022 of Bailhongal P.S. (Ss.120(B), 395 IPC r/w S.25(a) Indian Arms Act, 1959), stated as pending in S.C.No.143/2024 (elsewhere S.C.No.197/2022) before the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. Prosecution alleges a dacoity of 08.04.2022 in which a Bolero pickup carrying Rs.4,97,30,000/- in cash from Kolhapur was intercepted by an Ertiga with a fake number plate and Rs.4,68,00,000/- taken at pistol-point. Perusal of record showed: Rs.32,00,000/- recovered from the petitioner's possession with no explanation; test identification parade in which CWs.16 and 17 (driver and cleaner) identified accused Nos.1 and 2, narrating involvement of accused Nos.3 to 6. Holding: prima facie case of the petitioner's involvement in the dacoity; not a fit case for bail — petition dismissed. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments. Oral order of Justice Venkatesh Naik T, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dated 23.06.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100375 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. AJIT S/O. SAMBHAJI MALAME, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. VILLAGE DUDEBHAVI, TQ. KAVTHE MAHANKAL, DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416403.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH P.S.I. BAILHONGAL P.S. TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶16

(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (SECTION 483 OF BNSS), BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION IN S.C.NO.143/2024 PENDING BEFORE IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CONNECTION WITH BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.85/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 395 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE READ WITH SECTION 25(a) OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶25

Heard Sri Deepak S. Kulkarni learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶26

This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) (Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short) by the petitioner – accused No.3 seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.85/2022 registered by the Bailhongal Police now pending in S.C.No.197/2022 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

¶27

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the first informant is the resident of Attapadi in Sangli district, State of Maharashtra. He is a jeweler by profession having Laxmi Gold Jewelry shop in Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra as well as in Talaseri, State of Kerala.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

On 07.04.2022, when the first informant was in Talaseri, State of Kerala, he telephoned his manager working in Kolhapur and asked him to send cash. Accordingly, total sum of Rs.4,97,30,000/- was loaded in a Bolero pickup goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.22/D-2303 on 08.04.2022 at about 7.40 a.m, the driver CW.16 - Sachin Banudas and CW.15 – Mahadev Ramachadra Banasode, left Kolhapur in order to proceed towards Kerala through Belagavi-Hirebagewadi. When the vehicle was proceeding on Gaddikaravinakoppa-M.K.Hubballi road, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 who had hatched a conspiracy with accused No.2, who was working under the complainant, in order to commit dacoity, followed the said Bolero vehicle in their Ertiga vehicle bearing registration No.MH.14/EP-0297 by installing a fake number plate to the said vehicle i.e., registration No.KA.28/P.6432 and thus, intercepted the Bolero vehicle. Further, by pointing a pistol at them and threatened the diver and cleaner of the Bolero vehicle, took the said vehicle towards land bearing in Sy.No.127/3 in Maradi Nagalapura village and then took total case of Rs.4,68,00,000/-, which

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

was in five gunny bags. Accused No.1 and 3 to 6 also snatched their mobile phones as well as key of the vehicle and then fled away with the cash. Hence, the first informant lodged the information. This leads to registration of FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested by the Investigating Officer, in turn, they were remanded to the judicial custody.

¶34

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further contended that, though the alleged incident has taken place on 080.04.2022 and the first informant has came to know about the alleged incident on the same day, but the complaint has been lodged after an inordinate delay of two days i.e., after discussing with the matter with the family members. He further contends that the first informant has given contradictory statement as that of the statements given by CWs.16 and 17, wherein they have made several improvements and therefore the prosecution has suppressed the jenesis of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

statement of CWs.16 and 17 establishes that initially accused persons attempted to commit dacoity, but CWs.16 and 17 have not informed the police on the other hand, they have proceeded in the same vehicle, which also throw reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Learned counsel further contended that, if such a huge amount was robbed, there would not have been any delay in lodging the complaint and in view of the delay of two days in lodging the complaint, entire case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. He submits that, the petitioner undertakes that he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence he prayed for grant of bail.

¶38

Per contra , leaned High Court Government

¶39

Pleader has opposed to grant of bail and contended that, the petitioner was one of the person, who participated in the dacoity and CWs.16 and 17 identified accused Nos.1 and 2 in the test identification parade. He further contended that a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- has been recovered by the petitioner – accused No.3. In view of the nature of allegations, petitioner is not entitled to grant bail. If the petitioner is

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

enlarged on bail, then he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and also flee from justice and indulging in similar kind of offences is also not ruled out. Therefore, he prays to reject the petition.

¶43

From perusal of the material available on record, the incident has taken place on 08.04.2022, wherein it is alleged that the complainant being a jeweler had requested his manager in Kolhapur of Maharashtra State to send cash to Talaseri of Kerala State in his Bolero vehicle and when CWs.16 and 17 , who were transporting such amount from Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra to Talaseri of Kerala State on the way, accused No.1 and 3 to 6 followed the said vehicle in one Ertiga vehicle, showed pistol at them, took away Rs.4,68,00,000/-, which was kept in plastic bags in Bolero vehicle.

¶44

The records reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 10.05.2022 and their voluntary statements were recorded. Pursuant to their voluntary statement, a huge amount was recovered from them and it also reveals

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the involvement of accused Nos.3 to 6 in the crime. The record further reveals that, the Investigating Officer recovered a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- from the possession of accused No.3, who is petitioner herein. However, there is no explanation for the possession of such huge amount by the petitioner. It is very important to note that the test identification parade was conducted in this case and both CWs.16 and 17 i.e., driver and cleaner of the Bolero pickup goods vehicle have identified accused Nos.1 and 2, while test identification parade and which is narrated the involvement of accused Nos.3 to 6.

¶48

Thus, at this juncture a prima facie case is made out that the petitioner is one of the accused who involved in the dacoity. Accordingly, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, though incident occurred in the year 2022, investigation completed in the year 2022 and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court is not commenced

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7937 CRL.P No. 100375 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the trial. Thus, the petitioner – accused No.3 is incarceration in custody for long time. If the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, it meets the ends of justice.

¶53

Hence, the trial court is directed to expedite the matter in accordance with law, without unnecessary

¶54

adjournments.

¶55

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶56

EM /CT-AN

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sujana W/O Shashikanth Khannur Vs the State

Sri. Mohammed Rasool Kushtagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Najarin W/O. Mehamood Reshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Veerayya Alias Veeranna S/O Rudrayya Mathadanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanamanth S/O. Sathyappa Kademani, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrikanth S/O. Sahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka