Manosiji Roy Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER, DIRECTING THE AMRUTHAHALLY POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.0282/2024 BY AMRUTHALLI POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 316(2) AND 318(4) OF BNS WHICH IS PENDING ON

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:12298 CRL.P No. 3287 of 2025

¶17

THE FILE OF 4^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, (NOW IV ACJM) BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused in Crime No.282/2024 registered by

¶22

Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') is before this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.282/2024 was registered by

¶25

Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence on the basis of the first information dated 26.09.2024 received from Smt.Shireesha. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.779/2025 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 14.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12298 CRL.P No. 3287 of 2025

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the amount paid by the first informant was towards investment. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the petitioner and the first informant dated 13.08.2024 and first informant has suppressed the same in the first information.

¶29

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the MOU executed on 13.08.2024 between the petitioner and the victim lady. Perusal of the said document would go to show that amount deposited by the first informant was towards investment and in the first information itself, it is averred that initially petitioner had paid certain amount to the first informant towards the profit gained from the investment made by the first informant.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a sum of Rs.82,59,000/- was paid by the petitioner as returns to the first informant towards the investment made by her. From the aforesaid, it appears that dispute between the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12298 CRL.P No. 3287 of 2025

¶33

parties is civil in nature. Even otherwise, the payment made by the first informant was towards investment and since she had executed a MOU with the petitioner, it cannot be said that first informant was induced to make the said payment. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the said offence is imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.282/2024 registered by Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:12298 CRL.P No. 3287 of 2025

¶40

of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶41

Petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶42

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶43

The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶44

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶45

SPV

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83

Manosiji Roy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manosiji Roy 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

Mani @ Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Prasi @ Parsi Vs State by Thilakpark Police Station

Sri Sanketh Kumar @ Chethan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Sandeep K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rohith R Vs State of Karnataka