Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2278 OF 2025 (KPIDFE)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAJESH KUMAR S/O. MADANLAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1817/A, SUBHASHNAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, MANDYA - 571 401

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. H. V. PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA EAST P.S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 16 OF KPIDEF ACT 2004 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA FURTHER TO GRANT BAIL BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C.NO.3971/2022 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.157/2014 ORIGINAL C.C.NO.1959/2017) OF MANDYA EAST P.S. FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 406,408,420,120B R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST DEPOSITORS EXORBITANT ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MANDYA.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant who is accused No.5, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.756/2025 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶23

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of complaint filed by Manukumar B.M., Mandya East Police Station registered the case in Crime No.157/2014 against the accused 1 to 15 for the offence under sections 406, 408, 409, 420 read with 149 of IPC.

¶24

After investigation, Investigating Officer has

¶25

submitted the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 15 for the offence under sections 120B, 149, 406, 408, 420,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

468 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in CC.No.1959/2017. Summons was not issued to the present appellant and case was split-

¶29

up against this accused and a separate case was registered in CC.No.3971/2022 and the trial Court issued NBW to the present appellant. All other accused are on bail. Since summons was not served to the present appellant, he had not appeared before the trial Court. Same is bonafide and not an intentional one. However, the appellant had filed application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, same came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by this order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in Para No.11 of the impugned order, the trial Court has observed that the petitioner had retired from the partnership firm with effect from 02.07.2010. In the charge sheet it is alleged that from 31.08.2010 to

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

08.12.2012, there is misappropriation of amount. The present appellant is no way concerned to the commission of alleged offence. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.

¶35

Learned HCGP Sri B.Lakshman submits that even

¶36

after service of summons, the appellant did not appear before the trial Court. Hence he is not entitled for any relief from this Court.

¶37

I have examined the materials placed before this court. On the basis of complaint filed by Manukumar B.M., Mandya East Police have registered the case in Crime No.157/2014 against accused 1 to 15 for the commission of offence under sections 406, 408, 409, 420 read with 149 of IPC. After investigation, IO has submitted charge sheet against the same accused for the offence under sections 120B, 149, 406, 408, 420, 468 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997. The observation made by the trial Court at para

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

No.11 of the judgment, would indicate that petitioner retired from the said partnership firm with effect from 02.07.2010. The charge sheet averments prima facie reveals that there is misappropriation from the date 31.08.2010 to 08.12.2012. The accused was not the partner of the firm from 31.08.2010 to 08.12.2012. However at this stage, it is not just and proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶42

It is submitted by the appellant counsel that summons was not duly served to the appellant. Therefore, he could not appear before the court. And all other accused are on bail. It is submitted that in CC.No.1959/2017, the trial is not yet commenced. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and previous antecedents of the petitioner, it is just and proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(i) Appeal is allowed .

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:47747 CRL.A No. 2278 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(ii) The order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.756/2025 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 is allowed.

¶49

(iii) Appellant/accused No.5 shall be released on bail on executing self-bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court in CC.No.3971/2022.

¶50

(iv) Appellant/accused No.5 shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶51

(v) Appellant/accused No.5 shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.

¶52

(vi) Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the trial Court for taking necessary action.

¶53

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶54

DHA

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. 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

Sri. Reddappa Reddy Vs State by

Abhishek J R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Siddalingayya R Hiremath Vs Sri Shanmugam S

State by Ramamurthynagara Vs Smt Mary

Basavaraju K N Vs State of Karnataka

O Thippesh Vs State of Karnataka