Majbul Hoque Laskar, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026CRL.P/7593/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail condition modification; relaxation of two local sureties requirement for out-of-State accused; petitioner permanent resident of Assam; Section 483(1)(b) BNSS 2023; POCSO Act Sections 7 and 8; Crime No.297/2025 Mico Layout Police Station Bangalore; Spl.C.No.2816/2025 FTSC-1 Bengaluru; earlier bail in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 dated 25.04.2026; personal bond Rs.1,00,000/-; HCGP did not seriously oppose; Karnataka High Court; CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.[ii(a)] of the bail order in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 dated 25.04.2026 modified: petitioner to execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties (requirement of two local sureties removed); all other conditions of the earlier order stand unaltered. ¶¶53

Majbul Hoque Laskar, Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether condition No.[ii(a)] of the bail order in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 (personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties) should be relaxed/modified, the petitioner being a permanent resident of Assam who cannot furnish two local sureties and remains in jail.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and condition No.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 vide order dated 25.04.2026 is modified.

¶¶54

Key takeaways

As modified, the condition reads: the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court — the requirement that the sureties be local is removed.ratio¶¶55
All other conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 on 25.04.2026 stand unaltered.ratio¶¶56
The Court was of the opinion that the prayer needed to be granted because, failing which, the petitioner would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the order passed in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 on 25.04.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), by oral order dated 18.06.2026 in CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026 filed under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowed a petition seeking modification of condition No.[ii(a)] imposed while granting regular bail in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 (order dated 25.04.2026). The petitioner, sole accused in Spl.C.No.2816/2025 (arising out of Crime No.297/2025 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bangalore City) for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru City, had been directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties. Since the petitioner, a permanent resident of Assam, could not furnish two local sureties and remained in jail, and the learned HCGP did not seriously oppose the prayer, the Court modified the condition to require a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties (omitting the locality requirement), leaving all other conditions of the earlier order unaltered.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29884 CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7593 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAJBUL HOQUE LASKAR, S/O. HASAN ALI LASKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A. J.D. MARA SLUM, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 076.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. KALEEM SABIR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY - 560 076. (REPRESENTED BY (STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶16

MUSLIMA W/O. QASIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A. J.D. MARA SLUM, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 076

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 483(1)(b) OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE BAIL CONDITION IN ANNEXURE-A IN CRL.P. 3263/2026 DIRECTING FURNISHING OF TWO LOCAL SURETIES BY PERMITTING THE ACCUSED TO FURNISH ONE

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29884 CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NON-LOCAL SURETIES OR PERSONAL BOND OR DEPOSITION OF BOND AMOUNT IN LIEU OF BAIL IN SPL.C NO.2816/2025 OF CRIME NO.297/2025 OF MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 7 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I AT BANGALORE CITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

1. This petition under Section 483(1)(b) of

¶26

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed with a prayer to relax/modify condition No.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 disposed of on 25.04.2026.

¶27

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the

¶28

respondent/State.

¶29

3. Petitioner, who is the sole accused in

¶30

Spl.C.No.2816/2025 pending before the Court of City Civil

¶31

and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru City, arising out of Crime No.297/2025 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29884 CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

8 of POCSO Act, 2012, had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 seeking regular bail and the said petition was allowed by this Court on 25.04.2026 subject to certain conditions.

¶35

4. The condition No.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner herein in Crl.P.No.3263/2026, which was allowed on 25.04.2026 reads as follows:-

¶36

" a) the accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court."

¶37

5. The petitioner is before this Court seeking modification/relaxation of the aforesaid condition no.[ii(a)].

¶38

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this has Court granted bail to the petitioner on 25.04.2026 in Crl.P.No.3263/2026, till date, the petitioner

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29884 CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

is not released from jail, since he is not in a position to comply with condition no.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court in the said petition. He submits that the petitioner being a permanent resident of Assam is not in a position to provide two local sureties for the likesum and accordingly,

¶42

he prays to relax/modify condition no.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 vide order dated 25.04.2026.

¶43

7. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of

¶44

respondent/State does not seriously oppose the prayer made in the petition to relax/modify condition no.[ii(a)], considering the nature of allegations found in the case as against the petitioner who is chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶45

8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

¶46

that the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition needs to be granted, failing which, he would not be in a

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:29884 CRL.P No. 7593 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

position to enjoy the fruits of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 on 25.04.2026. A ccordingly,

¶51

the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶54

(ii) The condition no.[ii(a)] imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 vide order dated 25.04.2026 is modified and the same shall read as follows:-

¶55

"(a) the petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court."

¶56

(iii) All other conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3263/2026 on 25.04.2026, stand unaltered.

¶57

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

VGR

Majbul Hoque Laskar, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majbul Hoque Laskar, v. 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

Vikki Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasa C Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Raiyan Vs State of Karnataka

M.D.Sadiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. T Rama Priya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chetan D Vs the State of Karnataka