Sri B S Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

S/O SURRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A 1^ST CROSS, BALEBAILU, RENUKAMBA APARTMENT, GANDHINAGARA, VTC THEERTHAHALLI (RURAL) PO: SEEBINAKERE, THIRTHAHALLI SHIMOGA – 577 432

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. PRADYUMNA B V

¶14

S/O B S VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, THIRTHAHALLI, SOPPUGUDDE THEERTHAHALLI (RURAL) PO: SEEBINAKERE, THIRTHAHALLI SHIMOGA – 577 432

¶15

SRI AMARPALLI SURESH,

¶16

S/O CHENNAPPA GOWDA A.T, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A NO 64, AZAD ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

P.O. THIRTHAHALLI

¶21

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 432

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA – 560 001

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN FIR NO.19/2026 BY THE RESPONDENT HENNUR P.S. FOR THE

¶29

ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 318(4) r/w 3(5) OF BNS 2023.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners, who are arraigned as accused No.1 to 3, are before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.19/2026 of respondent-police for the offences under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶37

Brief facts of the case:

¶38

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant is the Managing Trustee of M/s. RAY Educational Trust, Bengaluru, situated at 4^th Block, HBR Layout. In the month of September 2025, Mr. Amarpalli Suresh / accused No.1 met the complainant and discussed about his personal matters. At the instance of said accused No.1, the complainant met accused No.2, who assured her that one Mr.Athul Kumar Sharma from Hyderabad is about to donate Rs.100 Crores to the Trust of the complainant. It is further alleged that, based on the said assertions, the complainant had given the original documents relating to the Trust. Later, accused No.2 had

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

called the complainant and informed her that some of the original documents relating to the Trust were missing.

¶43

It is further alleged that the complainant was informed that Mr. Athul Kumar Sharma would visit Bangalore and that she had to book a flight ticket for him. Accordingly, she had booked the ticket and thereafter incurred all the expenditure for his stay at Bengaluru. It is further alleged that the petitioners made the complainant to believe that they would arrange Rs.100 Crores of donation to the Trust and they have taken Rs.35 Lakhs from the complainant towards security and other charges, on different dates. However, after some time, the said Athul Kumar Sharma blocked the complainant’s phone number, and the petitioners were also not responding to the complainant. Therefore, she lodges a complaint against the petitioners.

¶44

Heard Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Subba Reddy K.N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the complainant being the Managing Trustee of M/s. Ray Educational Trust, lodges a complaint stating that the petitioners had assured her that they would arrange Rs.100 Crores of donation to her educational institution and they were stated to have received amount of Rs.35 Lakhs towards security and other charges, from her on different dates. The said allegations are baseless and bald. The petitioners are reputed persons in the Society and having deep roots in the Society. They will co-operate with the investigation and they will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release or bail. Making such submissions, learned Senior Counsel prays to allow the petition.

¶48

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3. They had intention to deceive the complainant from the beginning. They impersonated one person as a rich man

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

and made the complainant to believe that he would arrange donation of Rs.100 Crores to her educational institution and demanded and obtained an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs from her, assuring her that the amount would be given to her Trust. The manner in which the petitioners have committed the offence requires custodial interrogation. Considering the same, it is not appropriate to grant bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the averments of the complaint. The alleged incident is stated to have commenced on 01.09.2025. Complaint came to be registered on 12.01.2026. As per the averments of the said complaint, accused No.1 introduced accused No.2 saying that, accused No.2 would arrange donations to educational institutions. It is alleged that accused No.2 assuring the complainant that one Mr.Athul Kumar Sharma from Hyderabad is willing to donate Rs.100 Crores to the Trust of the complainant, had received the original documents of the complainant’s

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Trust to arrange the donation. Subsequently, accused No.2 called the complainant and informed her that certain original documents pertaining to the Trust were missing and that the donor would come to Bengaluru to complete the process. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to spend almost Rs.3 Lakhs for the purpose of accommodation and flight charges of the said Mr. Athul Kumar Sharma for his visit to Bengaluru.

¶58

It is further stated that Mr. Athul Kumar Sharma assured the complainant that all the documents were ready and that, in order to release the donation amount, she had to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- towards security. On the instructions of Mr. Athul Kumar Sharma, the complainant deposited Rs. 20,00,000/- into the IndusInd Bank account of Rohan through RTGS. The complainant also paid Rs. 15,00,000/to Mr. Athul Kumar Sharma towards miscellaneous charges on different dates, in the hope of receiving a donation of Rs. 100 crores for her educational institution.

¶59

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merit of the case, it is

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16003 CRL.P No. 2892 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of

¶63

the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶64

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The petitioners are ordered to be

¶68

enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest, in Crime No.19/2026 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra , on executing their personal bonds 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 Investigating Officer.

¶69

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the

¶70

jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today, to execute the personal bonds and also to furnish sureties.

¶71