Dismissed¶47

Sri Manish Kumar Soni v. the State Represented by

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026CRL.P/17454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS 2023; misappropriation of entrusted gold bullion and ornaments; Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.; Crime No.110/2025 Vishveshwarapuram Police Station; FIR dated 27.06.2025; pending before 3rd ACMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore; trial Court order dated 28.07.2025 in Criminal Misc.No.5789/2025 affirmed; CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's remaining unavailable — neither to the complainant nor before the Court nor before the Investigating Authority — primafacie indicates that he is evading the process of law, and this aspect weighs heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail. ¶40

Sri Manish Kumar Soni Vs the State Represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶36

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The magnitude of the alleged misappropriation is significant and the gold entrusted pertains to the customers of the complainant, thereby invoking public interest and not merely a private dispute.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that the matter is a civil dispute cannot be accepted at that stage, as the investigation is still in progress.ratio¶40
The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail require consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of absconding and the likelihood of tampering with the evidence.ratio¶40
Applying those principles, the petitioner has made out no ground for grant of anticipatory bail, and the trial Court rightly rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused — Criminal Petition dismissed. The petitioner, accused in Crime No.110/2025 of Vishveshwarapuram P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a complaint by the General Manager of Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. alleging non-return of about 9022.850 grams of mixed gold bullion and 22-carat gold ornaments entrusted to him for jewellery manufacture/repair, approached the High Court under Section 482 BNSS challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.5789/2025 by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), rejecting his anticipatory bail application. The Court held that the petitioner's remaining unavailable primafacie indicated evasion of the process of law; that the significant magnitude of the alleged misappropriation, involving gold pertaining to the complainant's customers, invoked public interest; that his civil-dispute plea could not be accepted with the investigation still in progress; and that, applying the nature/gravity, absconding-risk and evidence-tampering criteria, no ground for anticipatory bail was made out. Petition dismissed; trial Court's order affirmed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17454 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI MANISH KUMAR SONI C/O SRI. KAILASH CHAND SONI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT. NO.342, 1^ST FLOOR, 22^ND CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 576 219. (BY SRI. THEJAS M R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE REPRESENTED BY VISHVESHWARAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 576 101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO BE ALLOWED AND THE RESPONDENT POLICE MAY BE DIRECTED TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RESPECT OF CR.NO.110/2025 OF VISHVESHWARAPURAM P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 316(2),318(4) OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE 3rd ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking to set aside the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.5789/2025 on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application filed for grant of anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

¶20

Brief facts :

¶21

One Naresh Joshi, General Manager of Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who was engaged in the manufacture and repair of jewellery work, was entrusted with about 9022.850 grams of mixed gold bullion and 22-carat gold

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ornaments. It is stated that despite such entrust, the petitioner failed to return the gold and ornaments and thereafter, became untraceable. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.110/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the

¶25

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS, 2023').

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

¶27

(i) the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated;

¶28

(ii) the dispute arises out of the business transaction and civil in nature;

¶29

(iii) he has no criminal antecedents and he is permanent resident of Bengaluru;

¶30

(iv) he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court;

¶31

(v) the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and charge sheet has not been filed despite filing of FIR on 27.06.2025;

¶32

(vi) the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application without proper consideration.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submits that there is a strong primafacie case against the petitioner. Substantial quantity of gold has been misappropriated. The petitioner is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. There is likelihood of fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. Investigation is in progress and custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶36

The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out any ground for grant of anticipatory bail .

¶37

It is evident from the materials placed on record that the complaint is against the entrustment of substantial quantity of gold to the petitioner. The allegation of entrustment is disputed by the petitioner. The allegation of the complainant is also about non-return of the gold. The petitioner has not made himself available either to the complainant or returned to the Court or

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

subjected himself to the Investigating Authority. The conduct of the petitioner remaining unavailable, primafacie indicates that he is evading the process of law. This aspect weighs heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail. The magnitude of the alleged misappropriation is significant and the gold entrusted pertains to the customers of the complainant thereby invoking public interest and not merely a private dispute. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the matter is of a civil dispute cannot be accepted at this stage. The investigation is still in progress. The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail requires this Court to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of absconding and likelihood of tampering the evidence.

¶41

Applying the said principles, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out no ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The trial Court on appreciation has rightly rejected the application filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the point for

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20319 CRL.P No. 17454 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

consideration is answered and accordingly, this Court pass

¶45

the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed .

¶48

ii) The order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.5789/2025 on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) stands affirmed .

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶51

PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Sri Manish Kumar Soni v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manish Kumar Soni v. the State Represented by

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

Patel Ayyanna Gowda Vs Sri Srinivasa

Prakash Kunder Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Battarusetty Vijaya Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

Swamy Vivekananda High School Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M Jacob Vs J Deborah

Sri. M. P. Jaishankar Vs the State of Karnataka