Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed-in-part: (i) impugned order dated 30.11.2021 in C.C.No.5706/2020 set aside; (ii) matter remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.3 for release of gold articles seized under PF No.103/2020; (iii) petitioner's application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for release of vehicles under PF Nos.105/2020 and 49/2020 allowed and respondent No.3's application dismissed; (iv) respondent No.3 to hand over the vehicles to respondent No.1-police, who shall hand them over to the petitioner on as-is-where-is basis subject to conditions (indemnity bond of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties, no alienation/encumbrance/third-party rights, production on demand, no alteration of chassis/engine/colour, photographs and videographs before release).

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for release of gold ornaments seized under PF No.103/2020 should be set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh reconsideration. +1 more

Court's answer

In respect of the gold articles/ornaments seized under PF No.103/2020, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions (the petitioner intending to produce additional documents, and a similar request by respondent No.3 having been rejected by the Trial Court), the impugned order is set aside insofar as it rejects the applications filed by the petitioner and respondent No.3, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

In respect of the vehicles seized under PF Nos.105/2020 and 49/2020, since the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioner, who is the registered RC owner, and there is no material to indicate that the subject vehicles belong to the complainant (the vehicles released to respondent No.3 lying idle and unused), it is just and appropriate to direct release of the vehicles in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and imposing conditions; accordingly the petitioner's application is allowed and respondent No.3's application is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Operative directions: respondent No.3 is to hand over custody and possession of the subject vehicles to respondent No.1-police authorities, who shall thereupon hand over custody and possession to the petitioner on as-is-where-is basis, subject to conditions including execution of an indemnity bond of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, no alienation/encumbrance/third-party rights, production of the vehicles when called for, no alteration of chassis/engine number/colour, and photographs and videographs of the vehicles to be taken by the respondents before release.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.; filed under S.528 BNSS) by accused No.4 in C.C.No.5706/2020 (Crime No.10/2020, IV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru), arising from a bank-fraud investigation in which gold ornaments (PF No.103/2020) and vehicles (PF Nos.105/2020 and 49/2020) were seized. The Trial Court by order dated 30.11.2021 rejected the petitioner's application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the gold ornaments and vehicles and allowed the complainant-bank's (respondent No.3) application for release of the vehicles; the petition also assailed the revisional order dated 15.07.2024 in Crl.RP.No.5/2022. Held (single-judge oral order, S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., 25.10.2025): (i) as regards the gold articles under PF No.103/2020, without expressing any opinion on merits — the petitioner intending to produce additional documents — the impugned order was set aside qua both applications and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law; (ii) as regards the vehicles, since they stand registered in the petitioner's name (registered RC owner) with no material indicating the complainant-bank's ownership, and the vehicles released to the bank were lying idle, the petitioner's release application was allowed, the bank's application dismissed, and the impugned order set aside; the bank to hand the vehicles to the police for onward release to the petitioner on as-is-where-is basis subject to conditions: indemnity bond of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties, no alienation/encumbrance/third-party rights, production when called for, no alteration of chassis/engine number/colour, and photographs/videographs before release. Petition allowed-in-part.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12621 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJ S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.50 2^ND CROSS, HEBBAL ROAD, LOKANAYAKANAGAR, MYSORE – 570 016.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., FOR SRI. SANMUKH REDDY, ADVOCATES)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, (INVESTIGATED BY CCB BANGALORE CITY) REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING PREMISES, BANGALORE – 560 001.

SRI. KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KARNATAKA STATE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, NO.16, 2^ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

M/S. CANARA BANK, UTTARAHALLI – II BRANCH, NO.56/1, 56/B, CHANDRA ANNEXE, 1^ST FLOOR, CHIKKALASANDRA,

UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

BANGALORE – 560 061.

REP. BY ITS SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI. VIKYATH.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & SRI. SANDEEP KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 IN C.C.NO.5706/2020 (CRIME NO.10/2020) OF RESPONDENT POLICE, ORDER PASSED BY THE IV A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.5/2022.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Accused No.4 in C.C.No.5706/2020 on the file of the Trial

Court has preferred this petition aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 whereby the application filed by him under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of gold ornaments and subject vehicles was rejected by the Trial Court, which allowed the application for release of vehicles filed by respondent No.3 – complainant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed a complaint dated 22.01.2020 against the officials of respondent No.3 – Bank comprising of General Manager and staff, etc., for investigation. The police authorities have filed a charge sheet in which the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4. During the course of investigation, the police authorities seized the gold ornaments and vehicles under PF No.103/2020, PF No.105/2020 and PF No.49/2020. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner – accused No.4 filed an application seeking release of gold ornaments and vehicles seized from his custody and possession. Similarly, respondent No.3 filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of gold ornaments and release of vehicles. Both applications were considered together by the Trial Court, which proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner by partly allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 especially directing release of the subject vehicles in favour of respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as rejection of application filed by the petitioner for release of gold ornaments under PF No.103/2020 is concerned, certain relevant documents in this regard were not produced by the petitioner and as such, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh insofar as gold ornaments seized under PF No.103/2020 are concerned by the Trial Court.

It is submitted that insofar as the subject vehicles seized under PF No.105/2020 and PF No.49/2020 are concerned, the said vehicles were purchased by the petitioner and the Registration Certificate stands in the name of the petitioner and in the absence of any material to indicate that respondent No.3 was the owner of the said vehicles, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and allowing the application filed by respondent No.3.

Per contra, learned SPP and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 jointly submit that the petitioner is alleged of misappropriation of funds belonging to respondent No.3 – bank. Hence, proceedings has

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

been initiated not only against the petitioner but also against the other bank officials, who are involved in the alleged huge bank fraud and the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Insofar as the gold articles / ornaments seized under PF No.103/2020 are concerned, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he intends to produced additional documents in this regard coupled with the fact that similar request made by respondent No.3 has been rejected by the Trial Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to rejection of the applications filed by the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of the gold articles seized under PF No.103/2020, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

Insofar as the subject vehicles seized under PF Nos.105/2020 and 49/2020 are concerned, pursuant to the impugned order, the subject vehicles were released in favour of respondent No.3 – bank and same is in custody of respondent No.3, who is not using it for any purpose whatsoever and the same are lying idle as on today. It is also pertinent to note that since the subject vehicles stand in the name of the petitioner, who is the registered RC owner, in the absence of any material to indicate that the subject vehicles belong to the complainant, it would be just and appropriate to direct release of vehicles seized under PF No.105/2020 and PF No.49/2020 in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and by imposing certain conditions.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that bank would hand over the subject vehicles to respondent No.1 – police authorities, who may be directed to release the same in favour of the petitioner after following prescribed procedure.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed-in-part.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

(ii) The impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.5706/2020 arising out of Crime No.10/2020 by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the application filed by petitioner for release of gold articles under PF No.103/2020 as well as application filed by respondent No.3 for release of gold articles seized under PF No.103/2020.

(iv) Application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.. for release of vehicles under PF Nos.105/2020 and 49/2020 is hereby allowed and the application filed by respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed.

(v) Respondent No.3 is directed to hand over custody and possession of the subject vehicles to respondent No.1 – police authorities, who immediately thereafter hand over the custody and possession of the subject vehicles to the petitioner on as is where is basis subject to the following conditions:

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42363 CRL.P No. 12621 of 2024

HC-KAR

(a) That the petitioner shall execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum.

(b) That the petitioner shall not alienate, encumber

or create third party rights over the subject vehicles.

(c) That the petitioner shall produce the subject vehicles as and when called for by the respondents.

(d) That the petitioner shall not alter, change or modify any part of the subject vehicles including chassis, engine number, colour of the vehicles, etc., in any manner whatsoever.

(e) It is further directed that before release of the subject vehicles in favour of the petitioner, respondents shall take necessary photographs and videographs of the vehicles from all angles for the purpose of future use.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15