Dismissed¶60

Syed Sulaiman @ Tenkasi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026CRL.A/450/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim bail on medical/family grounds; escort charges and State exchequer burden; violation of earlier conditional release order; accused No.11 in NIA-case sessions trial (SC 1347/2016 c/w SC 381/2015, Bengaluru); appeal under S.21(4) NIA Act 2008 r/w S.439 CrPC 1973; appellant Syed Sulaiman @ Tenkasi; W.P.No.32176/2024 converted to CRL.A No.450/2025; amounts: Rs.50,000/- deposit, Rs.1,58,000/- escort estimate; disposition: appeal dismissed, no relief granted; Karnataka HC-KAR, NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB, decided 20.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no ground to grant the relief sought or to set aside the trial Court's order dated 15.06.2023, since the appellant was not ready to bear the entire escort charges and had earlier violated an order granting a similar benefit. ¶57

Syed Sulaiman @ Tenkasi Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.450 OF 2025 (21(NIA))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SYED SULAIMAN @ TENKASI S/O. SHAIK MEERAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEAR PFI OFFICE 9^TH CROSS, KARUMDAKADAI AZAD NAGAR COIMBATORE-627 811

¶11

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

NOTE - THE ASMA A. WHO IS PETITIONER IN WP.NO.32176/2024 THE WP HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO CRIMINAL APPEAL HENCE AS PER CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE THE ORIGINAL APPELLANT HAS MADE A PARTY IN THIS APPEAL INSTEAD OF ASMA A. …APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION (CCB) BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (FOR NIA). …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT 2008 R/W 439 OF THE CR.P.C., 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 15-6-2023 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.1347 OF 2016 C/W SESSIONS CASE NO.381 OF 2015 BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU,WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶26

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

¶27

Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP appearing for the State.

¶28

This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of the bail petition filed by accused No.11, vide order dated 15.06.2023. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the trial has already commenced

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and a substantial number of witnesses have been examined, i.e., about 100 witnesses, and several more witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial Court. It is submitted that the completion of the trial would take several years and that the accused has already been in judicial custody for more than 12 years.

¶32

The learned counsel further submits that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/towards escort charges, whereas the cost estimated by the State is Rs.1,58,000/-. It is contended that the appellant’s wife is suffering from 80% disability due to paraplegia, and considering her serious medical condition, the appellant may be released for a period of four days out of the amount already deposited. It is also submitted that writ petition was earlier filed before this Court seeking reduction of the amount, which has now been treated as a criminal appeal.

¶33

The learned counsel also vehemently contends that in similar cases, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.25411/2024 and W.P. No.9823/2025, has granted interim

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

bail for a period of 30 days. It is submitted that at this critical stage of his wife’s illness, it is the responsibility of the husband to take care of her, and the support of the appellant is absolutely necessary. Hence, it is prayed that the accused be enlarged on bail.

¶37

Per contra , Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State, would submit that the cost of providing escort was estimated in 2021, which was Rs.1,58,000/-, and now in 2026, the cost would be more. By depositing 50% of the cost, at the cost of the State exchequer, the accused cannot be released on bail, as the same is public money and already a large number of witnesses have been examined in the case on hand, but it is a case of waging war. The trial Court has also discussed the same in detail in paragraph Nos.11 to 17.

¶38

It is further submitted that with regard to the health condition of the wife of the accused, except for a document of the year 2022, no other documents have been produced. The same is evident from the reasoning in

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

paragraph Nos.16 and 17. Though it is contended that the family of the accused is not able to bear the expenses imposed by the State for his travel to his native place, this Court has to observe that sending accused No.11 to his native place to meet his wife would involve expenditure from the State exchequer, and hence, there cannot be any such order.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State, and also the challenges made with regard to the order passed by the trial Court dated 15.06.2023, and having considered the grounds which have been urged, the trial Court, while passing the order, has taken note in paragraph No.13 that accused No.11 filed one more application before this Court to visit his ailing wife on similar grounds, stating that his wife was admitted to the ICU as an in-patient from 09.06.2021 to 16.06.2021; that she was again admitted to the ICU on 12.07.2021; and that the chances of survival were remote. The same was taken note of, and even a submission was made that he was ready to pay the escort

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

charges to visit his ailing wife. Therefore, this Court, after considering the grounds urged in the application, allowed him to visit his ailing wife from 06.00 a.m. on 21.08.2021 to 06.00 p.m. on 24.08.2021, subject to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- as advance and to deposit the remaining escort charges, if any, after he returned from his native place. Thereafter, accused No.11 visited his ailing wife as per the order of this Court, but he failed to deposit the remaining escort charges before the Jail Authorities and thereby violated the order passed by this Court, the same is also taken note of by the trial Court.

¶46

In paragraph No.14, the letter sent to the Central

¶47

Prison is also taken note of. In paragraph No.15, the memo seeking permission to visit his ailing wife at his native place on the same grounds is taken note of, and it is also noted that his wife sent an email to this Court, which is discussed in paragraph No.16. An observation is made that subsequent to the 2022 certificate issued by Dr. T.C.R. Ramakrishna, nothing has been placed on record, either at the time of rejecting the application or even subsequent to

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the rejection of the application dated 15.06.2023, with regard to the continuation of treatment or further ailment, although it is stated that the wife is suffering from 80% disability due to paraplegia.

¶51

The same aspect is also considered in respect of

¶52

the accused who has been in jail for more than 10 years, as discussed in paragraph No.17, and now the learned counsel would submit that he has been in custody for more than 12 years. However, earlier, the accused had the benefit of the order passed by the Court and availed the same only upon depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, after returning, he failed to pay the balance amount towards escort charges and thereby violated the conditions of the order. Now again, he seeks permission of this Court by submitting that he would pay Rs.50,000/-, and that he has already deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Prison Authorities, but he is not ready to bear the additional expenses.

¶53

When such being the case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the State,

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB CRL.A No. 450 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

it is noted that even in the year 2021, the escort cost itself was Rs.1,58,000/-, and as of 2026, the cost would be substantially higher and considering the earlier violation of

¶57

the order, as noted in paragraph No.14, and the detailed discussion in paragraph Nos.16 and 17, we do not find any ground to grant the relief by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 15.06.2023, since the appellant is not ready to bear the entire escort charges and earlier order also violated after availing the similar benefit.

¶58