Sri M Muniraju Vs State by Karnataka

SRI. M MUNIRAJU, S/O. LATE MUNIHANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, NAGASETTYHALLI, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LOKESH KUMAR K S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally 1. STATE BY KARNATAKA signed by SREEDHARAN BY CCB POLICE STATION BANGALORE BANGALORE CITY, SUSHMA LAKSHMI REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Location: High Court of BANGALORE-560 001. Karnataka

¶15

SRI. SREERAMESH B L, S/O T N LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT #F-1, BRINDAVANA APARTMENT, PATELAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, NAGASHEETY HALLI, SANJAYANAGAR POST,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RMV EXTESNION, II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 094. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 09.03.2026

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR.N.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO A) GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.2/2026 DTD 09.01.2026 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT CCB P.S., BENGALURU,ON THE FILE OF I ACJM, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION.189(1), 190, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) R/W 61(2) OF BNS, 2023, CONSIDERING THE PENDENCY OF O.S.NO.9603/2025 AND THE SUBSISTING AD-INTERIM INJUCTION, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OFJUSTICE AND EQUITY AND B) DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF BEING ARRESTED BY THE RESPONDENT CCB POLICE, BANGALORE OR ANY OTHER POLICE COMING UNDER HIS JURISDICTION AND C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court

¶29

seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.2/2026 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 189(1), 318(4), 336(2), 61(2), 336(3), and 340(2) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶30

Brief facts of the case:

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that a property was purchased on 16.07.2008 under the registered sale deed from Arun Jerald Lobo. From the date of purchase of the said property, the family of the complainant were having in possession of the said property. On 02.07.2014, it is stated that he had executed gift deed and the same has been duly registered. The donee namely, Dr.Tejashwini Gowda executed gift deed in favour of her brother namely, M.Nanjegowda. Such being the fact, it is alleged that the present petitioner and others

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

in order to knock off the property, created a fabricated partition deed and got the revenue records changed.

¶36

Heard Sri.Lokesh Kumar K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Praveen Kumar N.K., learned counsel for de-facto complainant.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire allegations are made against accused No.1. However, he has been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. The accused No.1 has filed a civil suit in OS.No.6903/2025 pending before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The entire case is based on civil dispute. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide the conditions imposed

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

by this Court. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State vehemently submitted that the manner in which the petitioner and others have committed the offence would indicate the clear intention of deceiving the complainant and his family members. The allegations against the petitioner that he along with others have created and fabricated the false partition deed and sold the property to other members. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is very much necessary. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶43

Similarly, the learned counsel for de-facto complainant who assisted the prosecution has also endorsed the submission of the learned HCGP for State.

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶47

parties. The present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and the allegation is that all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention to deceive the complainant and others, created and fabricated the documents and got the revenue records changed in order to gain unlawfully. As such, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner and others.

¶48

It is noticed that accused No.1 has been

¶49

enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Considering the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶50

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶53

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶54

enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Crime No.2/2026 of respondent-police for

¶59

the offence under Sections 189(1), 318(4), 336(2), 61(2), 336(3), and 340(2) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶60

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before

¶61

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

¶62

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶63

(v) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor

¶64

hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14080 CRL.P No. 2635 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(vi) The petitioner shall appear before

¶68

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶69

(vii) The petitioner shall not commit

¶70

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶71

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶72

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶73

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri M Muniraju v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Muniraju v. State by 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

Thota Naika Vs State of Karnataka by Tarikere

Mr. Akbar Salam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madesha @ Bande Madesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthik K N. Vs State of Karnataka

Thimmanna Vs State of Karnataka by

Prashanth Alias Pacchi Vs the State of Karnataka