Selvamani S Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Selvamani S Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitions allowed; the impugned orders dated 24.01.2025 in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025 set aside; bail applications of accused nos.3 to 10 in Crime No.324/2024 remitted to the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Hunsur) for fresh consideration after granting the defacto complainant an opportunity of hearing; accused free to seek interim protection before the Sessions Court, to be considered on priority; parties to appear on 19.07.2025 with direction to dispose of the applications afresh within one week of appearance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the defacto complainant could assail the Sessions Court's anticipatory bail order by a petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, or was required to file a writ petition instead (maintainability). +2 more

Court's answer

This Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all criminal courts of the State and, in exercise of powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, can set aside a bail order found to be cryptic and without application of mind; the accused's submission that the defacto complainant ought to have assailed the order by a writ petition is liable to be rejected.

Ratio / Principle

A reading of the impugned order shows the learned Sessions Judge did not apply his mind to the allegations and passed a cryptic order assigning only general reasons; though grant or refusal of bail is discretionary, discretion exercised without application of mind cannot be sustained.

Key takeaways

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh's case, the defacto complainant has to be given an opportunity of being heard before the bail applications of the accused are considered; since he was not heard despite filing an application, the impugned orders cannot stand.ratio¶129
The ratio in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh (relied on by the accused) is not applicable to this case.ratio¶131

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petitions under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 by the defacto complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by order dated 24.01.2025 of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Hunsur), in Crl. Misc. Nos.5003/2025, 5004/2025 & 5009/2025 arising out of Crime No.324/2024 of Periyapatna Police Station (offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023 — alleged misappropriation of Rs.49,23,700/- through loans to 141 fictitious persons): HELD, the impugned order assigned absolutely no reasons for granting anticipatory bail and was cryptic and without application of mind; a discretionary bail order exercised without application of mind cannot be sustained (following Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269). HELD further, the defacto complainant's application to oppose the bail was left undecided and he was not heard; in view of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, the defacto complainant must be heard before the bail applications are considered. HELD further, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, this Court can set aside a cryptic bail order; the contention that the defacto complainant should have filed a writ petition (relying on Dolat Ram, (1995) 1 SCC 349 and Prashant Singh Rajput, (2022) 14 SCC 645) was rejected, those ratios being held inapplicable. Orders set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the defacto complainant, with liberty to the accused to seek interim protection (to be decided on priority), appearance fixed on 19.07.2025 and disposal directed within one week thereafter.