Dismissed¶7

Rakesh P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2026CRL.P/12870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused under S.438 Cr.P.C./S.482 BNSS; robbery S.394 r/w S.34 IPC; C.C.No.659/2024; Crime No.201/2023 Huliyar PS, Tumkuru; chopper assault on CW.2; gold mangalya chain 41.930 g snatched from CW.1; similar case Crime No.110/2023 (Ss.394, 397, 201 IPC); TIP identification; absconding despite NBW; apprehension of witness tampering and bail-jumping; petition dismissed; Justice M.I.Arun; decided 09-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the investigation has been completed and hence the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail cannot be accepted; completion of investigation does not by itself entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail. ¶5

Rakesh P Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused No.1 in C.C.No.659/2024 (Crime No.201/2023, offences punishable under S.394 r/w S.34 IPC), is entitled to anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. / S.482 BNSS in the event of arrest.

¶1

Court's answer

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The material on record discloses that the petitioner was armed with a chopper, assaulted CW.2 and snatched the gold mangalya chain from CW.1; it is a heinous offence punishable with a term which may extend up to ten years.

¶6

Key takeaways

The petitioner's admitted involvement in a similar case (Crime No.110 of 2023) and his absconding without appearing before the trial court justify the apprehension that, if enlarged, he is likely to threaten the witnesses and jump bail; hence it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — refusal. Petitioner, accused No.1 in C.C.No.659/2024 (arising from Crime No.201/2023, Huliyar Police Station, Tumkuru District) for offences punishable under S.394 r/w S.34 IPC, sought pre-arrest bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. / S.482 BNSS. Prosecution case: on 31.10.2023 at about 08.10–08.15 p.m., the petitioner with co-accused waylaid CW.2 near Bellara Gollarahatti road, assaulted him with a chopper on the forehead and snatched CW.1's gold mangalya chain weighing about 41.930 grams. Held (M.I.Arun, J.): (i) completion of investigation does not by itself entitle the petitioner to bail; (ii) the material shows he was armed with a chopper, assaulted CW.2 and snatched the chain — a heinous offence punishable up to ten years; (iii) his admitted involvement in similar Crime No.110 of 2023 (Ss.394, 397, 201 IPC), identification in the Test Identification Parade, and absconding despite a Non-Bailable Warrant justify the apprehension that he would threaten witnesses and jump bail. Not a fit case for anticipatory bail; petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19808 CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12870 OF 2025

¶8

(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAKESH P. S/O PUTTARANAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶11

R/AT MARABAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-01.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HULIYAR POLICE STATION TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶17

REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. AYUB ALI KHAN, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)

¶21

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.482 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:19808 CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ARREST IN C.C.NO.659/2024 IN CONNECTION TO CRIME NO.201/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, C.N. HALLI, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 394 READ WITH 34 OF IPC., BY HULIYAR POLICE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in C.C.No.659/2024

¶30

in connection with Crime No.201/2023 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, C.N.Halli, Tumkur District for the offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

Petitioner is accused no.1 in the above case. It is the case of prosecution that on 31.10.2023, at about 08.10 to 08.15 p.m., when CW.2 - Srinivasa was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-44/R-4971 along with CW.1 - Poornima and CW.3 - Nachiketh from Bellara towards

¶32

his village, accused nos.1 to 4 along with a juvenile in conflict with law, followed them in a Car and near Bellara Gollarahatti

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19808 CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

road, waylaid the car and accused no.1 assaulted CW.2 with a phopper on his forehead and snatched a gold mangalya chain weighing about 41.930 grams from CW.1 and threatened them with dire consequences and fled away.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that pursuant to the incident alleged in the instant case, the petitioner was arrested in some other case and while he was in custody, a body warrant was issued and the required interrogation and investigation in the present case is completed and the presence of the petitioner is not required for further investigation. He submits that Bail is the rule and jail is an exception and the petitioner requires to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest. He further submits that without any requirement, the respondent-Police are trying to arrest the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen, has the necessary properties to furnish surety and he would abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed, if the bail were to be granted.

¶37

Learned Additional SPP for the respondent contends that

¶38

the petitioner has not been arrested in the present case.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:19808 CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

However, he submits that statements of CW.1 to CW.3 clearly disclose that the petitioner is the one who assaulted CW.2, with a chopper and snatched the gold chain from CW.1. He further submits that the petitioner has been identified by the complainant in the Test Identification Parade and there is one more case against him and he is a habitual offender. He also submits that the petitioner is not attending the proceedings before the trial court, though Non-Bailable Warrant is issued against him and he is absconding. He submits that in the event of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, there is a possibility of him threatening the witnesses and also jumping the bail and for the said reason, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶43

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation has been completed, and hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail cannot be accepted.

¶44

The material on record clearly discloses that the petitioner was armed with a chopper and he assaulted CW.2 and snatched the gold mangalya chain from CW.1. It is a heinous offence which is punishable for a term which may extend upto ten

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19808 CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

years. Further, it is admitted that the petitioner has been involved in a similar case in Crime No.110 of 2023 wherein he has been accused for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 201 of IPC. Further, he has absconded and has not appeared before the trial court. These facts justify the apprehension of the learned Additional SPP that the petitioner is likely to threaten the witnesses and also jump bail, if he is enlarged on bail. Hence, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶48

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶50

hkh. List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Rakesh P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh P v. the 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

Varun Rajendra Vs the Chief Commissioner

Maha Jabeen Vs Assist Commissioner (South Zone)

Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs State of Karnataka

K Praveen Vs the Secretary

Sri Sampath Sundar Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. T Sheshaiah Vs the State of Karnataka