Karnataka High Court
Sri.Imran H vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
CRL.P No. 362 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31 ST
DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 362 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) /
482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. IMRAN H
AGE 37 YEARS,
S/O ASLAM H,
R/AT SANTEBANNURU POST,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SANTHEBENNUR
POLICE STATION-572 201,
Digitally
signed by CHENNAGIRI,
LAKSHMI T DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
Location:
High Court REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
of Karnataka O/O ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BUILDING COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADV. FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION OF PETITIONER
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
FOR THE GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.3/2025
PUNISHABLE U/S 69, 318(2) OF BNS ACT, PENDING IN THE
COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT,
CHENNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REGISTERED BY
SANTEBANNUR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AS
PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 28.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 31.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
In this petition preferred under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023, petitioner/accused in Crime No.3/2025 of
Santhebennur Police Station has sought to release him on
anticipatory bail.
2. Above case is registered against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 69, 318(2) of
BNS, 2023, on a complaint lodged by Rabiya Basri.
3. Complaint averments in brief are that, the
complainant and the accused were working as teachers in
one Wisdom School, Hosur Village, hence, they got
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
acquainted with each other. It is alleged, the accused with
a promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with
the complainant and later cheated her etc.
4. Petitioner has directly approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail. He has not availed the remedy
before the Sessions Court.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has
contended that both Sessions Court and High Court are
having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an application
seeking bail and therefore, the petitioner has approached
this Court directly. He would contend that the petitioner
was kidnapped by the henchman of the complainant and
detained from 04.12.2024 to 09.04.2024. A missing
complaint was filed by his father on 05.12.2024,
registered as Crime No.232/2024 at Santhebennur Police
Station, Davanagere. He contended that the entire
allegations made against the petitioner are false and
created and there is a threat to the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
6. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the
Bombay High Court in Mohanlal Nandram Choudhari v.
State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 CRL.L.J.4656
and a judgment rendered by this Court in
Crl.P.No.3213/2013 disposed on 11.06.2013.
7. Though Sessions Court and High Court have
concurrent jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding a
petition for bail, it is prudent for the petitioner to approach
the Sessions Court at the first instance, unless there are
exceptional circumstances to file such application directly
before the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court. In
the above decision rendered by the Bombay High Court,
the said position has been reiterated. No exceptional
reasons are made out so as to entertain the instant
petition. If an adverse order is passed by the Sessions
Court, it is always open for the petitioner to file a petition
before this Court for the same relief. If the instant petition
seeking anticipatory bail is entertained without there being
any exceptional grounds made out, it will set a precedent
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
and in every case, this Court has to deal with such
petitions.
8. In the second decision relied on by the learned
counsel for petitioner, it is a case wherein no FIR was
registered, hence the petition seeking anticipatory bail was
rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that no
blanket order can be passed. This Court granted
anticipatory bail considering the threat of arrest faced by
the accused therein. In the said case, the accused had
approached the Sessions Court in the first instance. The
said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
9. For the foregoing reasons, petition is disposed
of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy
before the Sessions Court.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Ct:ar
