Allowed

Mr. Lwellyen Andrew D Vine v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026CRL.P/16849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted interim bail to the petitioner in a complaint involving loot, voyeurism, and extortion under BNS 2023. The court held that since most investigation is complete and no custodial interrogation is needed, bail is granted along with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner in Crime No.301/2025 subject to execution of bond and conditions regarding tampering and cooperation.

Mr. Lwellyen Andrew D Vine Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16849 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. LWELLYEN ANDREW D VINE S/O. LATE ROGER DEVINE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ARAKERE, MICOLAYOUT B G ROAD, BENGALURU CITY PRESENTLY R/AT. No. 58 ANUTHAM EAST SIDE APARTMENT 2^ND CROSS, SS FARM ROAD, HORAMAVU BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SRINIVAS C H, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE BAIL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.301/2025, WHO

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, (i.e STATE BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64(1), 69, 88 OF BNS 2023.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.301/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 69 and 88 of BNS.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional SPP for the respondent -State.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and the victim both were divorcees. Both were working in the same company and came in contact. They started residing under live in relationship. The petitioner and the victim -lady both were having children. Photos produced along with the petition indicate that the close relationship of petitioner with the

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

victim lady and the family members of the petitioner. There is no any borrowing of money by the petitioner from the victim lady. There were many transactions wherein the petitioner has transferred several amounts to the bank account of the victim lady. There is no any promise to marry the victim lady. Considering the above, offence punishable under Section 64(1), 69 and 88 of BNS are not attracted. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.11.2025 and as major portion of the investigation is over, he is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned Additional SPP for the respondent -State would contend that the averments of the complaint clearly indicate that the petitioner by deceitfully taken the victim and had sexual intercourse with her and recorded the same in his mobile. The petitioner threatening the victim girl to use the said recording in his mobile had continued to harass her

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

sexually and also borrowed several amounts and failed to return the said amount borrowed. The matter is under investigation, if the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and there are chances of he hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶34

Having heard learned counsels, the Court

¶35

has perused the complaint, FIR and other materials placed on the record.

¶36

The victim lady is aged 46 years and the petitioner is aged 40 years. Both petitioner and victim lady are divorcees and both are having children. Both petitioner and the victim lady were working in the same company and came in contact with each others. The photos produced along with the petition of the petitioner and the victim lady indicate that they are in close relationship, and it was known to the family members of the petitioner and the children of the victim lady. The victim lady went along

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

with the petitioner on tour along with others. Considering the above aspects, whether the allegation against the petitioner attracts the offences alleged is matter of investigation and trial. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.11.2025 and therefore, he is not required for further custodial interrogation, as major portion of the investigation is over. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out the case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶40

7. In the result, in the following

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No. Crime No.301/2025 of Puttenahalli Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 69 and 88 of BNS subject to following conditions:

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1220 CRL.P No. 16849 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

a) The petitioner -accused shall execute a

¶48

personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶49

b) The petitioner -accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶50

c) The petitioner -accused shall cooperate with

¶51

Investigating Officer in further investigation, if any.

¶52

d) The petitioner -accused shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

DSP

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 Ct.sm

Mr. Lwellyen Andrew D Vine v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Lwellyen Andrew D Vine v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nandan S Vs State of Karnataka

Chandra Shekar B Vs State by Karnataka

Sri. v. Rakesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dineesh v (A-2) Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Malleshappa Vs the State of Karnataka