Shri Imtiyaz Ahemad M.J. S/O Late Zainul Abdeen Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD 580 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.66/2025, PENDING BEFORE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE OF EXTENSION POLICE STATION HOSAPETE, TQ AND DIST.VIJAYAPURA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 316(2), 318(2), 340(2) AND 336(3) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶25

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘BNSS’ for short) with the following prayer:

¶26

“Wherefore, in the light of the above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/sole accused in Crime No.66/2025 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete of Extension Police Station, Hosapete, Tq. And Dist.: Vijayapura for the alleged offences punishable under Section 316(2), 318(2), 340(2) and 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to meet the ends of justice.”

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Facts of the case are as under:

¶31

A complaint came to be lodged by Smt.Regina with Hospet Extention Police, Vijayanagara District in Crime No.66/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 340(2) and 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the accused being the computer teacher was involved in siphoning the provident fund amount with the aid of the computer and caused loss to the tune of Rs.39,65,799/-.

¶33

Police after registering the case, is investigating the matter and for want of presence of the petitioner, the investigation has not progressed.

¶34

Attempt made by the petitioner in getting the anticipatory bail before the District Court resulted in dismissal.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this

¶39

petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶41

that the petitioner has no hand whatsoever in the alleged fraud as there was no nexus between the incident and the petitioner.

¶42

He would further contend that there was no access to the accounts of the school where the petitioner was working as computer teacher and therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner is per se incorrect and sought for allowing the petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail grounds.

¶44

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶45

On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, the complaint came to be filed on 10.10.2025.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Whether at all the petitioner had a hand in the alleged fraud or not cannot be decided by this Court, at this stage, by holding a mini trial.

¶50

Suffice to say that for want of presence of the petitioner, investigation has crippled to a considerable extent. Despite best efforts, investigation agency is unable to arrest the petitioner to proceed with the investigation.

¶51

Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and undergo limited period of custodial interrogation not only the investigation would be progressed, but also the rights of the petitioner would be balanced.

¶52

Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Petition is allowed .

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ii. Petitioner is directed to join the Investigation

¶59

Agency by appearing before the Investigation

¶60

Officer on 14.01.2026 at 10.00 a.m.

¶61

iii. Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial interrogation, on the same day before 6.00 p.m. Thereafter, the petitioner be enlarged on bail, by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶62

iv. Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency in all aspects of the matter including furnishing of passwords of computer and mobile phone and other necessary details like email-id of the petitioner for effective investigation.

¶63

v. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC-D:83 CRL.P No. 104864 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

vi. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday between 10.00 am to 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶68

vii. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶69

viii. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Vijayanagara District without prior permission.

¶70

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶71

Ordered accordingly.

¶72

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶73

KAV Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43

Shri Imtiyaz Ahemad M.J. S/O Late Zainul Abdeen v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Imtiyaz Ahemad M.J. S/O Late Zainul Abdeen v. the 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

Iranna S/O Manohar Jutti Vs Smt. Sushila W/O Chandrappa Kamble

Sharada W/O Geerish Nandanawad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar Vs Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Gonirudrappa Choudappa Tulajammanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mohan L Haramalakr S/O Laxman Haramalakar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakash S/O Choudappa Hirebidari Alias Valmiki Vs the State of Karnataka