Sri Vinaya H T Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.422/2025 NOW IN CC NO.7012/2026 AGAINST THE ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 311 OF BNS 2023, WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE VII ADDL. CJM COURT AT BANGALORE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3, is before this Court seeking regular bail in C.C.No.7012/2026 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional CJM Court, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.422/2025 registered by the respondent-police for the offence punishable under Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶31

Brief facts of the case:

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the native of Kolala Village, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District. He is working as an Elevator Technician at Bengaluru and staying in Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru – 560097. On 07.12.2025, at about 11.30 p.m., when he was in his house, some unknown persons knocked on the door. When he opened the door, three persons who were in police uniform entered the house and started abusing the complainant in filthy language, stating that the complainant was selling ganja and they wanted to conduct a search of the house. They started searching the house even though the complainant pleaded with

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

them that he was not that kind of person and he was working as an Elevator Technician and living in the said area. However, they conducted search and found that Rs.53,000/- was there in the house and they took the said amount and thereafter, they have taken the mobile and got the Kotak Mahindra Bank App opened and found that amount of Rs.87,000/- was there in the said account and they got the said amount transferred online from the complainant and also snatched Rs.2,000/- kept in the pant pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, they threatened him and went away from the spot. Hence, he lodged a complaint stating that an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- has been stolen by the petitioner and others. The respondent – police on receiving the said information, registered FIR, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶37

Heard Sri Chandan B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶38

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. He has

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations made against the petitioner are baseless and bald. No identification parade has taken place to identify the petitioner. Moreover, nothing has been recovered at his instance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as a salesman in the cloth shop. He is having aged parents and he has to take care of them. The petitioner is the earning member of the family. The charge sheet has already been filed. Custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide the conditions in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently submitted that the petitioner and others had committed a heinous offence. They trespassed into the house and committed theft of the complainant’s cash. The respondent - Police, after registering the case, conducted the investigation. During

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner has been disclosed. Therefore, he has been arraigned as accused No.3. Merely because his name is not found in the FIR, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not present at the time of committing the said offence. The prosecution has established his involvement in committing the said offence. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint and charge sheet, it appears that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 and it is alleged that he and other accused committed robbery in the house of the complainant. Though the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet are held to be true, the fact remains that identification parade has not been conducted to substantiate that the petitioner was present on that day at the time when the alleged incident had occurred.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Having considered the same, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.7012/2026 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional CJM Court, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.422/2025 registered by the respondent-police for the offence stated supra , on executing a 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.

¶56

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15872 CRL.P No. 3505 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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

¶60

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶61

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.

¶62

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶63

Bss

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Vinaya H T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinaya H T 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

Sri Sujith Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkateshwaralu. P. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruthi. R Vs State by Extension Police

B Seenappa Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj R Vs State of Karnataka