Sri Muniraj Ragav Vs State of Karnataka

SRI MUNIRAJ RAGAV S/O LATE CHIKKABIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO. NO.112, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, (OPP. GRAMMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL) VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶10

Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKABIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO. NO.112, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS,

¶12

(OPP. GRAMMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL) VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU - 560034.

¶13

SMT. ARUNAKSHI N

¶14

W/O VINAY KUMAR A M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT AGARALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMANAHALLI POST,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MADDUR TALUK,

¶18

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 429.

¶19

SMT. PAVITHRA N, D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY C, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO. NO.112, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, (OPP. GRAMMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL) VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU 560034.

¶20

SMT. N POOJASHREE D/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O NO. NO.112, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, (OPP. GRAMMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL) BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶21

KUM. SUSHMITHA, D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O NO. NO.112, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, (OPP. GRAMMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL) VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. P MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01)

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.405/2025 OF ANEKAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 61, 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 335, 336(2), 337, 338, 340(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.405/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 61, 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 335, 336(2), 337, 338, 340(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶39

Brief facts of the case:

¶40

The case of the prosecution is that the father-in-law

¶41

of the complainant, late Muniswamy, had purchased land in Sy. No.43/2 of Chintalamadivala Village measuring 28 acres 8 guntas on 12.10.1946. It is further stated that the husband of the complainant died on 17.10.2007. The khata of said property, which her father-in-law had purchased, was standing in the name of her husband Venkateswamy from 1996 till 2023. She was made to believe that property would be mutated in her name and instigated her to file a civil suit in OS.No.980/2015 and thereafter, FDP.No.1/2019.

¶42

It is alleged that all the petitioners herein colluded with a lawyer, created false document and, made false statements and submitted the same to the Court. It is further

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

stated that all these petitioners have committed the offence as stated supra. Hence, the complaint. The respondent police, after receiving the case, conducted the investigation. The investigation is in process.

¶46

Heard Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶47

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. Petitioners have obtained a decree from the Competent Court in respect of the said property. They are in possession of the property. The allegations made against the petitioners are baseless and vague. It is further submitted that initially, a private complaint was lodged against the petitioners on the same set of facts, and the same came to be dismissed. However, instead of challenging the said order, again she filed a complaint only in order to harass the petitioners.

¶48

The petitioners are the permanent residents of

¶49

Venkatapura, Bengaluru, and they are the family members and related to the complainant. The petitioners would abide by the

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶53

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State vehemently submitted that the custodial interrogation is very much essential. The allegations made in the said complaint are that they have created and forged certain documents and produced before the Court and obtained a fraudulent decree. The petitioners should cooperate with the investigation. At this stage, it is not appropriate to grant them anticipatory bail. If the anticipatory bail is granted, a proper investigation would not be possible. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint it would indicate that the complainant is the wife of Venkataswamy. There is a civil dispute between the petitioners and the complainant. It can be seen from the records that the civil dispute ended in confirming the decree in favour of the petitioners. On reading the averments of the complaint, I am of

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:15964 CRL.P No. 1628 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case to grant them bail as prayed for. Without adverting to the merits of the case, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The petitioners are ordered to be

¶62

enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.405/2025 of respondent-police for the

¶63

offence under Sections 61, 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 335, 336(2), 337, 338, 340(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶64

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the

¶65

jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶66