Bikas Modi Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MARATHHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE URBAN REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

MS. NIKITA SINGHANIA D/O- MANOJ KUMAR SINGHANIA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT - NO.505, RUHAT HOSENABAD, JAUNPUR UTTAR PRADESH - 222 002.

¶16

MS. NISHA SINGHANIA W/O MANOJ KUMAR SINGHANIA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT- NO. 505, RUHAT HOSENABAD, JAUNPUR UTTAR PRADESH - 222 002.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:14939 CRL.P No. 2368 of 2025

¶19

ANURAG SINGHANIA S/O MANOJ KUMAR SINGHANIA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT - NO.505, RUHAT HOSENABAD, JAUNPUR UTTAR PRADESH - 222 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/ CANCEL THE ORDER DATED:04.01.2025 GRANTING BAIL PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 108 AND 3(5) OF BNS, BY THE MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE URBAN AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 29 TH ACMM, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE IN CR.NO.682/2024.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The defacto complainant has filed this petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city, in Crl. Misc. No.26186/2024 and cancel the regular bail granted to respondent nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.682/2024 registered by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14939 CRL.P No. 2368 of 2025

¶29

FIR in Crime No.682/2025 was registered by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, against respondent nos.2 to 4 and another for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 09.12.2024 received from the petitioner herein who is the brother of deceased Atul Subhash. In the said case, respondent nos.2 to 4 who were arrested, had filed Crl. Misc. No.26186/2024 before the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city, seeking regular bail and vide the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge had granted regular bail to respondent nos.2 to 4 subject to conditions. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind. After Crl.P.No.14463/2024 was disposed of by this Court on 31.12.2024, in a hurried manner Crl. Misc. No.26186/2024 was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 04.01.2025. The gravity of offences has not been

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:14939 CRL.P No. 2368 of 2025

¶33

considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Perusal of the allegations found in the first information dated 09.12.2024 submitted by the defacto complainant which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.682/2024 by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against respondent nos.2 to 4 and another would go to show that deceased Atul Subhash was married to respondent no.2 in the year 2019 and from the wedlock they have a boy child aged about four years. It is alleged in the first information that respondent no.2 and her relatives who are arrayed as accused in the FIR were pressurizing the deceased and his family members and an attempt was being made to extort money. It is also alleged that respondent no.2 and his family members had filed multiple false criminal cases and had caused severe mental and physical stress to the deceased and for settling the criminal cases, the accused persons allegedly were demanding a sum of Rs.3 Crores from the deceased. In the first information, it is further alleged that deceased had committed suicide by recording the video in his mobile phone, in which he

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:14939 CRL.P No. 2368 of 2025

¶37

had allegedly made statements against the accused about mental and physical harassment and also extortion.

¶38

A reading of the first information would go to show that there is no mention in the first information of any specific act that had taken place immediately prior to the deceased committing suicide which would have either abetted or instigated him to commit suicide. General and omnibus allegations are found against the accused persons.

¶39

The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has rightly granted regular bail to respondent nos.2 to 4 vide the order impugned. A reading of the impugned order would go to show that the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and valid reasons for granting regular bail to respondent nos.2 to 4, and therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in a hurried manner. The alleged offences are not punishable with death of life imprisonment. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that the accused persons have violated any of the bail conditions. Under the circumstances, I find no

¶40