Dismissed¶44

Shri Vinesh S v. State of Karnataka

Anticipatory bail – Section 482 BNSS, 2023

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2025CRL.P/7964/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS 2023; Crime No.92/2025 Pulakeshinagar Police Station Bengaluru; FIR dated 19.03.2025 by Santhosh Kumar.G. re supply of 400 KVA Diesel Generator to Shilton Hospitality LLP; civil dispute prima facie; criminal antecedents; failure to surrender despite Supreme Court liberty in SLP (Crl.) No.2117/2025; earlier rejection by Kerala High Court in BA.No.10942/2023; Sessions Court rejection Crl. Misc. No.2863/2025 dated 03.05.2025; petition dismissed; Karnataka High Court; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; 18 June 2025.

What did the court decide?

The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner; the criminal petition is dismissed. ¶44

Shri Vinesh S Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused in Crime No.92/2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023.

¶23

Court's answer

The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner; the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents who has shown no respect or regard for law: despite the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to surrender in another criminal case in Kerala within the time granted, he has not surrendered till date and has instead filed a quashing petition before the High Court of Kerala.

¶40

Key takeaways

Although the contents of the first information prima facie show that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, and that the petitioner has cheated several others in similar manner, this did not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail having regard to his conduct and antecedents.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Section 482 BNSS, 2023 — Accused in Crime No.92/2025 of Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (alleged failure to supply a 400 KVA Diesel Generator after accepting payments, causing financial loss to Shilton Hospitality LLP) — First information prima facie discloses a civil dispute, but petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents: his earlier anticipatory bail plea (BA.No.10942/2023) was rejected by the High Court of Kerala on 21.10.2024; SLP (Crl.) No.2117/2025 was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.02.2025 with liberty to surrender within two weeks, which he did not avail; instead he has moved for quashing — Session Court having rejected his Crl. Misc. No.2863/2025 on 03.05.2025 — Held, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to such a petitioner — Criminal petition dismissed (Single Judge: S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; decided 18 June 2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7964 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI VINESH S @ VINESH SUBRAMANIAM S/O SUBRAHMANIAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. SUBRAMANIA INDUSTRIES, T.C. 39/1451, ARYA NAGAR, ARYASALA, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT KERALA STATE, PIN CODE - 695 009.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI ROHAN S, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/POLICE INSPECTOR PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.92/2025 DATED 19.03.2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 316(2) AND 318(4) OF BNS 2023 NOW PENDING BEFORE 4tH ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused in Crime No.92/2025 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.92/2025 was registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 19.03.2025 received from Santhosh Kumar.G., S/o late M.Ganeshan. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.2863/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 03.05.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶26

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶27

dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. By making

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

false allegations, criminal case has been registered against the petitioner with an intention to coerce and harass him and petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. The alleged offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the same is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has opposed the petition. She submits that petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and in a similar case, his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the High Court of Kerala and as against the said order, he had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2117/2025 and while dismissing the said petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted two weeks time to the petitioner to surrender and file necessary application seeking regular bail. However, till date, petitioner has not surrendered in the said case and he has been absconding as on this date. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In the first information dated 19.03.2025 submitted by Santhosh Kumar.G., General Manager of a partnership firm known as Shilton Hospitality LLP, it is alleged that petitioner who had accepted payments from the partnership firm for supply of 400 KVA Diesel Generator, had failed to supply the diesel generator, and thereby he had caused severe financial loss to the company. It is also alleged that petitioner has no intention to fulfill the contract and it is under these circumstances, the first informant had approached the police.

¶35

Though the contents of the first information would prima facie go to show that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, it is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he has cheated several others in similar manner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner had approached the High Court of Kerala in BA.No.10942/2023 seeking anticipatory bail which was rejected on 21.10.2024. As against the said order, petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2117/2025 which was rejected on 17.02.2025. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

petitioner, two weeks time was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the petitioner to surrender and if petitioner surrenders within time, his bail application was directed to be considered on merits, expeditiously. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has not surrendered pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, till date.

¶39

Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reviewed, he has failed to produce any material before this Court in support of the said contention of his. On the other hand, learned Addl. SPP has submitted that petitioner has now moved the High Court of Kerala with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings against him in the said case.

¶40

Be that as it may, the fact remains that petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and the material placed on record would go to show that he has no respect or regard to law. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender in another criminal case registered against him in Kerala State, till date he has not surrendered, and on the other hand, a submission is now made that

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:21066 CRL.P No. 7964 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

petitioner has filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala for quashing of the said proceedings. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, petition

¶45

is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶47

Shri Vinesh S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vinesh S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama N Vs State of Karnataka

Nawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Shakih Khan Alias Saqib Alias Starboy Shakib Vs State by Hebbala Police Station

Shri K M Narendra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Naveen Kumar N Vs State by K.R.Puram P.S.

Sri. Sathisha. H. S. Vs State of Karnataka by