Sri Madivalappa @ Madivala @ Myadi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2778 OF 2026

¶6

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MADIVALAPPA @ MADIVALA @ MYADI SON OF SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.165, NANDIKUR, GULBARGA TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 585 102.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA A N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY Ms. ASMA KOUSER., ADDL. SPP)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.296/2025 AND IN C.C.NO.47879/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 61(2)(A), 331(7), 331(8), 332(B), 307, 109(1), 309(6), 311 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, REGISTERED BY BANASHANKARI POLICE BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.296/2025 filed by the respondent - Police for the offences punishable under Section 311, 309(6), 109(1), 331(7), 331(8), 332(b) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS) seeking regular bail.

¶24

Factual matrix of the case:

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the son of

¶26

the complainant namely Rahul was doing real estate

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

business. Four months back he had appointed accused No.1 as a driver and he had provided a room in the house of accused No.1 for the stay. Thereafter, there was a dispute between the son of the complainant and accused No.1 in respect of real estate business and also sale of a

¶30

property belongs to the son of the complainant. It is alleged that the accused No.1 had demanded amount from the son of the complainant. However, the son of the complainant has refused to give the amount and he removed the accused No.1 from the job. Keeping in mind the said aspect, the accused No.1 hatched a plan to commit dacoity/robbery. Accordingly, on 14.09.2025, the accused No.1 along with the other accused went inside the house as Zomato Food delivery boys. One of the accused stabbed on the neck of the complainant and robbed the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and took some documents which belongs to the son of the complainant. In the meantime, the complainant came out of the house and raised alarm. Consequently, the neighbors came and caught hold of

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

accused No.2 and rest of the accused had fled away from their clutches. The respondent - Police after registering a case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶34

Heard Sri. R. Kalyan appearing for sri. Chandrashekara A.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent state.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶36

that, the petitioner was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a driver and staying in the house of the complainant. However, the complainant did not disclose his identity either in the F.I.R or in the complaint. Subsequently, he has been arrayed as accused. Moreover, he is the earning member of the family. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶41

Per Contra, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – State vehemently submitted that the accused no. 1 was working as a driver of the son of the complainant and he hatched a plan with other accused to commit theft in the house of the complainant. Accordingly, on 14.09.2025, the petitioner along with other accused persons entered the house of the complainant as Zomato Food delivery boys and committed robbery and took amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and also some documents relating to the properties of the son of the complainant and went away. The petitioner is the main accused, who hatched a plan along with other accused to commit robbery. If, the petitioner is released on bail, there may be chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, learned Additional Special Public

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Prosecutor for respondent – State prays to reject the petition.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties

¶46

and perused the averments of the charge-sheet. It appears from the record that the petitioner was working as a driver of the son of the complainant. The son of the complainant was doing real estate business. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the son of the complainant in respect of sale of a property situated in the Tumakuru district. Thereafter, the son of the petitioner has removed the petitioner from the job of driver and also settled the amount which the accused was entitled for. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner and others hatched a plan and committed theft of Rs.7,00,000/- and other documents from the house of the complainant. The fact remains that, the name of the present petitioner was not disclosed either in the complaint or in the F.I.R. Even though, she knew the accused/petitioner prior to the incident. Having considered non-mentioning the name of

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the petitioner in the complaint and FIR would indicate that

¶51

the petitioner has made out a case to grant him bail.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The petition is allowed.

¶55

ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged

¶56

on bail in Crime No.296/2025 filed by the respondent - Police for the offences punishable under Section 311, 309(6), 109(1), 331(7), 331(8), 332(b) read with 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶57

iii. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20006 CRL.P No. 2778 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

hamper with the proceedings of the Court.

¶61

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶62

v. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶63

In case, 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.

¶64

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶65

NM

Sri Madivalappa @ Madivala @ Myadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madivalappa @ Madivala @ Myadi v. the State of 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

Syed Junaidh Vs the State by

Sri Rajesh B N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mayappa a Nandi Vs State of Karnataka

Irfan Vs Range Forest Officer

Sri. Naveen Raj, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Manish Man Power Agency Vs the Commissioner