Allowed¶58

Benakesha, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026CRL.P/3220/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; dacoity; Section 395 IPC; accused No.4; Crime No.135/2015; Narasimharajapura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru; S.C.No.118/2016; bail cancellation; NBW; absconding; misuse of liberty; protracted trial with two witnesses examined; identification parade not conducted; personal bond Rs.1,00,000/-; bail conditions; liberty to seek cancellation; CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026; Section 439 Cr.PC / Section 483 BNSS; High Court of Karnataka; S Rachaiah J.; decided 11 March 2026.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in Crime No.135/2015 (arising out of S.C.No.118/2016) on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions including appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates and marking attendance before the jurisdictional Police once in 15 days till disposal of the case. ¶58

Benakesha, Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.135/2015 (offences under Sections 395, 109, 397 IPC) whose earlier bail was twice cancelled for absence, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶1

Court's answer

Since only two witnesses have been examined, witnesses are not coming forward, and the identification parade has not taken place, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody would not serve any purpose; it is appropriate to grant him bail on suitable conditions addressing the prosecution's apprehension.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.135/2015 on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶ORDER (ii)

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions (no threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, no involvement in criminal cases, furnishing correct address proof, and marking attendance before the jurisdictional Police once in 15 days); on violation of any condition, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.ratio¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — S.395, 109, 397 IPC dacoity case (Crime No.135/2015, Narasimharajapura P.S., Chikkamagaluru; S.C.No.118/2016 before II Addl. District and Sessions Judge). The petitioner, accused No.4, had twice been enlarged on bail and twice absented himself, resulting in cancellation of bail and issuance of NBWs; on production he was remanded to judicial custody on 11.07.2025 and his bail application was rejected by the Trial Court. Allowing the petition, the High Court (S Rachaiah, J.) held that with only two witnesses examined and the identification parade not conducted, continued judicial custody would serve no purpose, and enlarged the petitioner on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including appearance on all hearing dates and fortnightly attendance before the jurisdictional police, with liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation on breach.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /

¶7

483(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BENAKESHA, S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 224

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. H R SJOWRI AND KRISHNA KUMAR KK.,ADVOCATE) PAVITHRA N

¶12

AND:

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NARASHIMHARAJAPURA POLICE STATION, NARASIMHHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST – 577 101

¶15

REPRESENTED BY

¶16

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.118/2016 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.135/2015) REGISTERED BY THE NARASIMHARAJAPURA P.S. CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395, 109, 397 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN S.C.NO.118/2016, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is

¶31

arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.135/2015 seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C).

¶32

Factual matrix of the case:

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 5 went near the house of the complainant in a Maruthi Ertiga car which belongs to accused No.6. When the complainant opened the door, the accused Nos.4 and 5 enquired the price of rubber saplings and asked water for drinking. When the complainant went inside the house to bring water, accused Nos.2 to 5 entered into the house and demanded money. All the accused had taken T.V., Computer, charge light, Karbon mobile, computer’s CPU and also 2 induction stoves. It is further stated that the accused after having caused grievous injuries to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

complainant, committed dacoity. Hence, the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the respondent – Police conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶38

Heard Sri. H.R. Showri, learned counsel

¶39

appearing for Sri. Krishna Kumar K.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case has been registered against accused Nos.1 to 6. Trial Court after passing an order of committal, the petitioner and others had appeared before the Sessions Court and they were released on bail. However, the petitioner remained absent due to unavoidable circumstances. Hence, Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the petitioner. On 26.02.2023, the petitioner was produced before the Sessions Court through NBW and he has been remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, an application for regular bail was moved

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

before the Sessions Judge, on 26.06.2023, the same has been dismissed. Then, the petitioner had obtained bail by this Court and he had been enlarged on bail on 12.10.2023.

¶44

It is further submitted that the petitioner had remained absent. Therefore, his bail was cancelled and NBW was issued. The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and he has been remanded to judicial custody on 11.07.2025. The bail application had been rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State vehemently submitted that, this is one of the classic example to show that how the accused has misused the liberty given to him by the Trial

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Court. The petitioner herein remained absent before the Trial Court on several occasions. The petitioner has been secured through NBW.

¶49

It is further submitted that the offence is of the year 2015 and it has got delayed due to the non cooperation by the petitioner. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, again there is a chance of absconding. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Making such submissions learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State prays to reject the petition.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties

¶51

and perused the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the bail petition filed by the petitioner. On going through the averments of the case, it appears that the petitioner and others had committed an offence as stated in the charge sheet. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody for a longer period. However, only two witnesses have

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

been examined. None of the witnesses are coming forward

¶55

to give their evidence. Moreover, identification parade has not taken place. Such being the fact, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody would not serve any purpose. Hence, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶56

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) This Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶60

enlarged on bail in Crime No.135/2015

¶61

seeking for regular bail for the offences punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C., on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with

¶62

one surety for the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or

¶66

tamper the prosecution witnesses nor

¶67

hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶68

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before

¶69

the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶70

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in

¶71

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶72

(vi) The petitioner shall furnish the correct

¶73

address and also furnish the address proof issued by the concerned competent authority.

¶74

(vii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance

¶75

before the jurisdictional – Police once in 15 days till disposal of the case.

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:14596 CRL.P No. 3220 of 2026

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

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.

¶80

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶81

Benakesha, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benakesha, 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

Smt U R Rukmini Vs State of Karnataka

Areef Vs the State

T. B. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka by

Sameer Biswakarma Vs State of Karnataka

Bheema @ Bheemanaik Vs State by

K Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka