Sri. Denis Kardoja Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. DENIS KARDOJA S/O LATE KLEVIYAR KARDOJA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 3-125A, MILAN, CHITRAPADI VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA, BRAMHAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576225.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY KOTA POLICE STATION, UDUPI,

¶15

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

ANUSHA, D/O VINEETHA JOHN, W/O ANTHONY DOLWIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.234, S.M.KRISHNA NAGAR, THATTEKERE POST,

¶18

HASANA DISTRICT-573217.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

VINEETH JOHN, S/O JOHN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT D.NO.234, S.M. KRISHNA NAGAR, THATTEKERE POST, HASANA DISTRICT- 573217.

¶22

LATHISHA, S/O. AMBROS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT ARPITHA NILAYA, ADARSHA NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, ADLIMANE ROAD, HASANA TALUK, HASANA DISTRICT-573201.

¶23

AMBROS S.I., S/O INASAPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT ARPITHA NILAYA, ADARSHA NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, ADLIMANE ROAD, HASANA TALUK, HASANA DISTRICT-573201.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1;

¶26

SRI. PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ON 04.04.2025 IN CRL.MISC. NO.123/2025 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI IN CRIME NO.23/2025 IN KOTA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 305, 308(1), 308(2), 316(2), 318(2), 61(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNSS, 2023.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed by the complainant in Crime No.23/2025 (P.C.No.27/2025 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi) registered in Kota Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 308(1), 308(2), 316(2), 318(2), 61(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Petitioner is seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 to 5 vide order dated 04.04.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.123/2025 by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Udupi for the aforementioned crime number and the offences.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that he filed private complaint in PCR No.27/2025 before the I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, stating that complainant was in search for a bride for his son's marriage and accordingly, respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to the house of the complainant through one Mrs.Lata Mary, resident of Udupi, who is acquainted to the family of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and marriage was agreed to be performed and

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

accordingly, respondent No.2 resided in the house of the complainant.

¶39

On 09.02.2024, respondent No.2 told her

¶40

husband, the son of the complainant that the health condition of her mother i.e. respondent No.3 was not good and she needed to get back urgently to her parental house

¶41

and would return in four days. When the wife of the complainant was at work, respondent No.2 left the house and the complainant's son handed over Rs.5,000/- and dropped respondent No.2 to KSRTC bus Stand Udupi and

¶42

saw her into the bus going to Hassan. When the complainant's wife came to home from work, she noticed that some of the gold articles namely necklace weighing 40 gms, 4 gold bangles 10 gms each, 24 grams gold chain, 3 gold rings and ear rings were missing from the cupboard at home. When it was enquired with respondent No.2, she stated that she would return the said articles

¶43

once she gets back home and till date, respondent No.2

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

has not returned to home and demanded the complainant

¶47

to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs.

¶48

On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered for the aforementioned offences against the respondents. Pursuant to the crime being registered against respondent Nos.2 to 5, they approached the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.123/2025 seeking pre-arrest anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS. On consideration of the said bail petition, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi granted pre-arrest bail to respondent Nos.2 to 5 by imposing certain conditions as under:

¶49

(1) Petitioners shall execute bail bond for the value of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for like sum.

¶50

(2) Petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation and shall attend the trial regularly.

¶51

(3) Neither petitioners nor anybody on their behalf shall tamper or induce, try to

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

tamper or try to induce the prosecution witnesses to withhold from disclosing such facts of the offence either to the court or to the Investigating Officer.

¶56

(4) Petitioners shall furnish particulars of their Adhaar Cards.

¶57

(5) Petitioners shall appear within 20 days of this order before the Investigating Officer, if not, this order stands lapsed.

¶58

It is the contention of the learned for the

¶59

petitioner/complainant that despite the conditions granted in the bail order by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondents have not been co-operating for conducting of the investigation whenever the police summoned respondent Nos.2 to 5. On the contrary, the respondents have totally denied taking any jewellery and return of the gold jewellery to the complainant and wife of the complainant. Hence, the present petition is filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the bail due to violation of conditions imposed in the bail order granted by the Sessions Court.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶64

Learned HCGP contends that apart from appearing once before the investigating officer, whenever the investigating agency has called respondent Nos.2 to 5 over the phone to appear for investigation, they have been dodging for one reason or the other without co-operating for the investigation.

¶65

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 denies the allegations made by the complainant with regard to taking away any of the gold articles of the wife of the complainant. On the contrary, he submits that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are ready and willing to participate in the investigation.

¶66

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, it is seen that the sole ground seeking cancellation

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

of bail is that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not co-operating with the investigation and have not returned the amount as promised to the complainant and the wife of complainant. The bail has been granted which is not in dispute, the bond has been executed as per the conditions imposed in the bail order. Now the question is whether respondent Nos.2 to 5 are co-operating with the investigation.

¶71

It is not the case of the complainant that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have tampered or inducing the prosecution witnesses. Nevertheless, since the respondent Nos.2 to 5 have not participated or cooperated with the investigation, they are required to be directed to participate in the investigation whenever the investigating agency calls or summons them to the police station.

¶72

This Court is not satisfied with the contentions

¶73

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking cancellation of the bail, as no grounds are made out,

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20148 CRL.P No. 7725 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

specifically with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the bail order granted by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

This petition is dismissed .

¶79

However, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall

¶80

participate and co-operate with the investigation as and when the police authorities summon or call over the phone to the Police Station. It is made clear that in case after notice is given to respondent Nos.2 to 5, if there is no participation by respondent Nos.2 to 5 with the investigating agency, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Court seeking cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly.

¶81

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶82

DKB

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri. Denis Kardoja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Denis Kardoja 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

Gangadhar Vs Rani

State of Karnataka Vs Narasimha T S

Sri C Channegowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri. Munibyregowda Vs Sri. Kemparamu

Smt Asha Shenoy Vs Sri Sannayya Shetty

Mohammed Hussen Khan @ Katta Vs State of Karnataka