Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Shri H Gangadhara Vs the State Represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Shri H Gangadhara Vs the State Represented byShri H Gangadhara v. the State Represented by

Dismissed¶34

Shri H Gangadhara v. the State Represented by

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025CRL.A/1308/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma, oral judgment dated 11.07.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:25555) dismissed CRL.A No. 1308 of 2022 filed under S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of a S.438 Cr.P.C. anticipatory bail application (Crl.Misc.No.1125/2022, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, order dt. 12.07.2022) concerning an apprehended offence u/S 3 SC/ST (POA) Act on the FIR of Thirumalapurada Vishwanath and others at Soladevanahalli P.S.; counsel absent, appellant not prosecuting for three years; Trial Court's view upheld as the apprehension was bald and no grounds for anticipatory bail remained after three years; IA No.1/2022 disposed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the materials in light of the Trial Court's order, this Court found no reason to form a different opinion, as the Trial Court had assigned valid reasons: the appellant's apprehension regarding registration of a criminal case against him was only a bald apprehension.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant for the apprehended registration of a case under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act on the first information of Thirumalapurada Vishwanath and others, the Trial Court having rejected his Section 438 Cr.P.C. application on 12.07.2022.

Court's answer

On perusal of the materials in light of the Trial Court's order, this Court found no reason to form a different opinion, as the Trial Court had assigned valid reasons: the appellant's apprehension regarding registration of a criminal case against him was only a bald apprehension.

Ratio / Principle

No grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail, that too after three years of the apprehension.

Key takeaways

Although the rejection order was challenged in 2022 itself, the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal till date.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2022 under S.14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act — challenge to order dated 12.07.2022 of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in Crl.Misc.No.1125/2022 rejecting the appellant's anticipatory bail application under S.438 Cr.P.C. for an apprehended case u/S 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act on the first information of Thirumalapurada Vishwanath and others (Soladevanahalli P.S.) — appellant and counsel absent, no representation; three years lapsed since the apprehension and the appellant had not prosecuted the appeal — Trial Court's reasons held valid, the apprehension being only a bald apprehension of registration of a criminal case; no grounds made out for anticipatory bail after three years — appeal dismissed; IA No.1 of 2022 disposed in view of disposal of the main matter.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25555 CRL.A No. 1308 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2022 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

SHRI. H. GANGADHARA, S/O. G.M. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.140/11, KEREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU - 560 090.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NEGLUR ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO 1.REVERSING THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.1125/2022. 2.GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IF ARRESTED IN THE CASE THAT MAY BE REGISTERED BY SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ON THE FIRST INFORMATION OF THIRUMALAPURADA VISHWANATH RESIDING AT

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25555 CRL.A No. 1308 of 2022

HC-KAR

HURULI CHIKKANAHALLI, BENGALURU AND OR BY MARASANDRADA MUNIYAPPA, A RESIDENT OF KANSHIRAM NAGAR, BENGALURU AND OR RAMESH KUMAR R.RESIDENT OF KANSHIRAM NAGARA, BENGALURU, DODDA HOBALLAYYA, RESIDENT OF KANSHIRAM NAGARA, BENGALURU, MURTHY K.V.RESIDENT OF KANSHIRAM NAGARA, BENGALURU, RAMANJANAPPA.M., RESIDENT F KANHIRAM NAGARA, BENGALURU.

THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time.

The order sheet dated 10.07.2025 reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. No representation.

It is noticed that the appellant is challenging the order dated 12.07.2022, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Three years have already lapsed. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. However, to afford one more opportunity, list this matter on 11.07.2025."

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25555 CRL.A No. 1308 of 2022

HC-KAR

Even though the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated 12.07.2022 and the same is challenged before this Court in the year 2022 itself. Till date, appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

On perusal of the materials on record in light of the order passed by the Trial Court, I do not find any reason to form a different opinion, as the Trial Court has assigned valid reasons as it was only a bald apprehension expressed by the appellant regarding registration of criminal case against him. No grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail that too after three years of the apprehension. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main matter, IA No.1 of 2022 stands disposed of.

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV CT:VS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant for the apprehended registration of a case under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act on the first information of Thirumalapurada Vishwanath and others, the Trial Court having rejected his Section 438 Cr.P.C. application on 12.07.2022.medium confidence¶18
The court held
On perusal of the materials in light of the Trial Court's order, this Court found no reason to form a different opinion, as the Trial Court had assigned valid reasons: the appellant's apprehension regarding registration of a criminal case against him was only a bald apprehension.ratio¶34

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

SC/ST (POA) ACT14(A)(2)¶18 3¶18
Cr.P.C.438¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.1125/2022 rejecting the appellant's application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail).¶28
Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru · 12.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Appellant's application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 12.07.2022.¶28
Prior proceeding
The rejection order was challenged before this Court by the present appeal filed in 2022; the appellant thereafter did not prosecute the appeal.¶33
Prior proceeding
Order sheet dated 10.07.2025 recorded that learned counsel for the appellant was absent with no representation; one more opportunity was afforded and the matter was listed on 11.07.2025.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Shri. H. Gangadhara, S/o. G.M. Hanumanthaiah, aged about 50 years, r/at No.140/11, Kereguddadahalli Chikabanavara Post, Bengaluru - 560 090¶10
Sri. Neglur Aravind
respondent
The State represented by Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, rep. by Public Prosecutor in High Court of Karnataka¶14
Sri. Harish Ganapathy

Coram

AI extract

M G Umaauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 11 Jul 2025 · July
Registered: 22 Jul 2022
Case no.: CRL.A/1308/2022
CNR: KAHC010330942022
Topic: Anticipatory Bail
Bench: M G Uma
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRL.A

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M G Uma

Sri Puneeth @ Benki Puni Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jul 2025
Karthik @ Poonekutti @Lambu @ Rowdy Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jul 2025
Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay Vs State of Karnataka
10 Jul 2025
Govinda Bovi Vs State by Karnataka by
11 Jul 2025
Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy Vs State by R T Nagar
11 Jul 2025
Mrs.Ranjitha M .J. Vs Mr.Manjunath
14 Jul 2025

Cite this judgement

Shri H Gangadhara v. the State Represented by, CRL.A/1308/2022 (KA), decided on 11 July 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

SC/ST (POA) ACT14(A)(2) · 3
Cr.P.C.438

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 12.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.1125/2022 rejecting the appellant's application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail).Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru · 12.07.2022
Appellant's application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 12.07.2022.
The rejection order was challenged before this Court by the present appeal filed in 2022; the appellant thereafter did not prosecute the appeal.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M G Uma

Parties & counsel