Dismissed¶54

Sathyanarayana Bandlamudi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026CRL.A/538/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal dismissed; relaxation of anticipatory bail condition refused; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 14(A)(2); BNSS, 2023, Section 483(1)(b); condition no.vi - appellant not to leave trial court jurisdiction without prior permission; prior bail order in Crl.Appl. No. 109/2026 dated 13.02.2026; appellant directed to apply to Trial Court; Trial Court to dispose application per law; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice G Basavaraja; decided 23 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant given liberty to file a necessary application before the Trial Court for permission to leave its jurisdiction, and the Trial Court directed to dispose of such application in accordance with law. ¶54

Sathyanarayana Bandlamudi Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether condition no.vi imposed in the anticipatory bail order dated 13.02.2026 in Crl.Appl. No.109/2026 - that the appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the Court - should be modified/relaxed. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The appellant is at liberty to file a necessary application before the Trial Court to obtain permission to leave the jurisdiction of the Court.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The appellant ought to have approached the Trial Court by filing a necessary application for permission to leave its jurisdiction, instead of directly approaching this Court; accordingly the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Key takeaways

If such an application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (G Basavaraja, J.), by oral judgment dated 23.04.2026, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2026, filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in which the appellant sought modification/relaxation of condition no.vi of his anticipatory bail order dated 13.02.2026 in Crl.Appl. No. 109/2026 (the condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the Court). The Court held that the appellant should have applied to the Trial Court for such permission rather than directly approaching the High Court; it dismissed the appeal, observed that the appellant is at liberty to file a necessary application before the Trial Court, and directed the Trial Court to dispose of any such application in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.538 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SATHYANARAYANA BANDLAMUDI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O KOTESHWARA RAO BANDLAMUDI, R/O NO.443, KHB COLONY, 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, KORAMANGALA VI BK, BENGALURU-560095.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI VENKATESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY DCRE POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL, REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

SHARAVANA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE. VELU.D, R/O NO.29, 9^TH SQARE, MURPHY TOWN, NEAR GOOD SHEPHARD CHURCH, HALASURU, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560008.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 R/W 483(1)(B) OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER BY RELAXING THE CONDITION NO.VI I.E., THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT LEAVE THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE COURT IMPOSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL. APPL. NO.109/2026 DATED 13.02.2026 THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the following relief:

¶28

“WHEREFORE, the appellant in the above case most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to modify the order by relaxing the condition No.vi, i.e., the appellant shall not leave the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the Court imposed by this Hon’ble Court in Crl. Appl. No.109/2026 dated 13.02.2026 that for the reasons stated above in the ends of justice.”

¶33

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

¶34

following grounds:

¶35

“i. The appellant submits that he is the Director of the Company of “PLEASURE SPACES (INDIA)

¶36

PRIVATE LIMITED, and the registered office is situated in the sate of Karnataka. The Company carrying a business as builders, Developers, hirers and Dealers of all kinds of immovable properties, including apartments, Flats, shops, Hotels, Restorants, Cinema halls, multiplex complexes, Malls, Hospitals and etc.,

¶37

ii. The appellant submits that he being a Director of the Company he has to move to different countries to develop the company business and to upgrade the Company business. Further he is a native of Andra Pradesh, he required to go to his native place often and often to attend family functions and also to take care of his aged parents. Consequently, he cannot leave Bengaluru city, without getting relaxation of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

condition No.vi imposed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl. Appeal No. 109/2026.

¶42

iii. The appellant submits that if this Hon'ble Court allows this I.A.No. I, by relaxing the condition No.vi, no harm or damage will be caused to the respondent. On the other hand, if it is rejected, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship to him.

¶43

iv. The appellant is the law abiding and peace loving citizens and he has earned a good name and reputations among his friends, relatives and in his locality. He is having movable and immovabla properties at his disposal. He has no any bad antecedents.

¶44

v. The appellant submits that he was filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of The Sc/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989., for grant of grant anticipatory bail, in CrlAppl. No. 109/2026. After hearing the above appeal on both sides this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant him anticipatory ball by Order dated 13.02.2026, by imposing conditions. The condition No.vi is that the appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the Court.

¶45

vi. The appellant submits that he has not filed similar appeal for relaxation of condition imposed by this

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Hon'ble Court in Cr.Appl.No. 109/2026, dated 13.02.2026, before this Hon'ble Court or pending before any other court for grant of similar relief.”

¶50

I have examined the material placed before this

¶51

Court.

¶52

This Court has passed the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109/2026 on 13.02.2026 in which this Court has imposed condition while granting bail to the appellant that the appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the Court. If the appellant wants to leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, he can approach the Trial Court by filing necessary application before the Trial Court. Instead of that the appellant has directly approached this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the following observations:

¶55

(a) The appellant is at liberty to file necessary application before the Trial Court to leave jurisdiction of the Court.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:22124 CRL.A No. 538 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59