Sri Tummala Rajanikanth Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN HIS ARREST BY THE ARASIKERE P.S. IN CR.NO.85/2025, DATED 14.06.2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1830 PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13989 CRL.P No. 497 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The present petitioner is before this Court

¶40

seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime No.85/2025 of Arasikere Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere.

¶41

Brief facts of the case :

¶42

The case of the prosecution is that

¶43

Smt. Siddamma w/o late Veerabhadrappa lodged a complaint stating that her daughter B.B. Chandana had studied up to PUC in Sringeri. She was interested to pursue MBBS after her PUC. Therefore, she had written NEET exam in the year 2021 and had secured low marks. As she could not get percentage under the said examination, the tenants of the complainant i.e., Kishore and Harish were introduced by Rohit who was working as a car driver.

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:13989 CRL.P No. 497 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

It is further stated that the brother of Harish who is the petitioner herein was staying in abroad. It is further stated that he would make necessary arrangements to get MBBS seat for her daughter and also facilitate her to pursue her studies in abroad. However,

¶48

the petitioner herein was not aware about the local language and was not in a position to talk Kannada except Telugu. As per the instruction of the present petitioner and others, she is stated to have paid amount of Rs.14,14,200/- and odd. However, her daughter could not get the seat as promised by the petitioner and others. Hence, the complaint. The investigation is under progress.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. In fact, though, it is alleged that amount has been transferred to the different accounts of Rohith and others, no amount has been transferred to the account of the present petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in this case only in order to recover the money illegally.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13989 CRL.P No. 497 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

It is further submitted that, the petitioner is a

¶53

resident of Hyderabad and he is having a deep root in the society. The petitioner would abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶54

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶55

Pleader vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not permanent resident of the local jurisdiction, and he is the resident of Hyderabad. Moreover, the petitioner and others have committed fraud on the complainant stating that they would secure the medical seat to her daughter. Believing their assurance, the complainant had transferred almost Rs.19,00,000/-. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential for the reason that there are chances of having committed similar offences in respect of different persons. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of absconding or not available to the case. Hence, his bail petition has to be rejected.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13989 CRL.P No. 497 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶59

parties, and also perused the averments of the complaint,

¶60

no doubt, the incident had occurred in the year 2021. A complaint came to be registered on 14.06.2025. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner herein. No doubt, the petitioner is the permanent resident of Hyderabad. The offences alleged against him neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Merely because, the petitioner is not a localite is not a ground to deny the bail as the alleged offences exclusively triable by the Magistrate. Such being the fact, it is appropriate to grant bail. However, if suitable conditions are required to be imposed.

¶61

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The petition is allowed.

¶64

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.85/2025 of Arasikere Police Station for the offence

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13989 CRL.P No. 497 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere on executing his personal bond for a sun of Rs.1,00,000/with one local surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶68

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within one month from today to execute a personal bond and also furnish a local surety.

¶69