Karnataka High Court
Selvamani S vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
CRL.P No.2427/2025
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2427/2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
IN CRL.P No. 2427/2025:
BETWEEN:
SELVAMANI S
S/O SUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCCUPATION SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL
SECTION, S.M.F.G.INDIA CREDIT
CO. LTD., CHENNAI CITY - 32
R/AT NO.22, 17TH CROSSS MAZIDI
COLONY, GINDI, CHENNAI-32.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by BY PERIYAPATNA P.S, BY ITS S.H.O
NANDINI M S MYSORE DIST., REPRESENTED BY
Location: THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
OF HIGH COURT BUILDING
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. HARISH G.J.
S/O JAYASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDENT OF GARUDANA HALLI
HANGAL VILLAGE
ARAKALAGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
3. SHARATH KUMAR P.M
S/O LATE MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
CRL.P No.2427/2025
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
RESIDENT OF B.M. ROAD
PERIYAPATNA TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
4. NUTHAN A.C
S/O CHANDRA K
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF ANKANAHALLI
VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI
K.R. NAGAR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
5. RAGHUVEER
S/O MAHESHA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT ITTAGA HALLI VILLAGE
PANCHAVALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
6. KIRAN
S/O LATE MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT RENUKA NAGARA
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R-3 & R-5)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL THE
ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 HARISH. G.J, SHARATH KUMAR,P.M.,
NUTHAN A.C., RAGHUVEER AND KIRAN BY ORDER DATED
24.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5009/2025 IN CR.NO.324/2024
REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4), 316(5) 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) OF
BNS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
CRL.P No.2427/2025
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P NO. 2290/2025:
BETWEEN:
SELVAMANI S
S/O SUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SENIOR MANAGER
LEGAL SECTION, S.M.F.G.INDIA
CREDIT CO. LTD., CHENNAI CITY - 32
R/AT NO.22, 17TH CROSS,
MAZIDI COLONY, GINDI,CHENNAI - 32.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PERIYAPATNA P.S.
BY ITS S.H.O., MYSORE DIST
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KIRAN KUMAR K.R
S/O RAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KANTHEKOPPALU
VILLAGE, ANTHARSANTHE POST
AND HOBLI, KOMALAPURA POST
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA
TALUK, MYSORE DIST - 571 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3)
OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL
THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR
TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 KIRAN KUMAR.K.R. BY ORDER
DATED 24.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5004/2025 IN
CR.NO.324/2024 REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
CRL.P No.2427/2025
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4),
316(5) 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) OF BNS.
IN CRL.P NO. 2429/2025:
BETWEEN:
SELVAMANI S
S/O SUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SENIOR MANAGER
LEGAL SECTION, S.M.F.G. INDIA
CREDIT CO. LTD,CHENNAI CITY - 32
R/AT NO. 22, 17TH CROSS, MAZIDI
COLONY, GINDI, CHENNAI - 32.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PERIYAPATNA P.S.
BY ITS S.H.O., MYSORE DIST.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PULIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KALEGOWDA
S/O JAYARAMU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HOSAMALA
VILLAGE, ANTHARSANTHE POST
AND HOLI, HD KOTE TALUQ
MYSORE DIST - 571 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI PREREET JAIN, ADV., FOR
SRI P. MAHESHA, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3)
OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL
THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR
TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 KALEGOWDA BY ORDER DATED
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
CRL.P No.2427/2025
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
24.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5003/2025 IN CR.NO.324/2024
REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4), 316(5) 336(2),
336(3), 340(2) OF BNS.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. These three petitions under Section 483(3) of BNSS,
2023, is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set
aside the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Court of VIII
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in
Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, and cancel
the anticipatory bail granted to accused nos.3 to 10 in Crime
No.324/2024 registered by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru
District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.324/2024 was registered by Periyapatna
Police Station, Mysuru District, for the aforesaid offences
against Manoj and nine others based on the first information
dated 27.12.2024 received from the petitioner herein who is
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
the Company Executive of SMFG India Pvt. Ltd. Apprehending
arrest in the said case, private respondents in these three
petitions who are arrayed as accused nos.3 to 10 in the FIR had
filed Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025,
before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which were allowed by
order dated 24.01.2025. Assailing the said order, the defacto
complainant is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any
reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the accused. He
submits that though the defacto complainant had filed an
application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking
permission of the Court to oppose the bail application filed by
the accused persons, the defacto complainant was not granted
an opportunity and no orders were passed on the application
filed by the defacto complainant. He submits that the accused
persons are involved in committing misappropriation of huge
amount which belongs to gullible farmers and the learned
Sessions Judge without appreciating the said aspect of the
matter, has erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y VS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER - (2022)9 SCC 269, and in
the case of JAGJEET SINGH & OTHERS VS ASHISH MISHRA
ALIAS MONU & ANOTHER - (2022)9 SCC 321.
5. Per contra, learned Counsels appearing for the accused
submit that the alleged offences are punishable with
imprisonment for a period of seven years and triable by the
Court of Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a
discretionary order which cannot be found fault with. The
accused persons have cooperated with the Investigation Officer
for the purpose of investigation. Cancellation of bail granted to
the accused is not sought on the ground that they have not
complied with the terms and conditions of the bail order, or in
view of the supervening circumstances, but the order has been
questioned on the ground that it is a illegal and erroneous
order. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have questioned the
said order by filing a writ petition, and the petition filed under
Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, is not maintainable. In support
of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the judgment
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DOLAT RAM &
OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA - (1995)1 SCC 349, and in the
case of PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT VS STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2022)14 SCC 645.
6. Learned HCGP submits that no recovery has been done
from the accused till date and notices have been issued to the
petitioner for the purpose of producing necessary documents
before the Investigation Officer, and the investigation is under
progress.
7. In the first information, it is alleged that accused persons
in conspiracy, had created a list of 141 fictitious persons and
had sanctioned loan to the said persons to the tune of
Rs.49,23,700/-, and thereafter transferred the said loan
amount to the bank account of other customers and had
illegally withdrawn the same, and thereby had misappropriated
amount to the tune of Rs.49,23,700/- belonging to the
Company. Accused nos.3 to 10 who were working in the branch
office of the company at Periyapatna during the relevant time,
had filed applications seeking anticipatory bail before the
jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025,
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
5003/2025 & 5004/2025, and the said applications were
allowed on 24.01.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge.
8. A reading of the order impugned passed by the learned
Sessions Judge would go to show that absolutely no reasons
are assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting
anticipatory bail to the accused persons. Except stating that the
allegations made in the complaint are to be proved during trial
and personal liberty of the accused is required to be
safeguarded, there is no other reason assigned by the learned
Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
Though there is an allegation against the accused of
misappropriating a sum of Rs.49,23,700/-, the learned
Sessions Judge has made an observation that there is no
necessity to recover any property from the accused.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y's case supra, in
paragraphs 24 & 25, has observed as under:
"24. The impugned order passed by the High
Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application
of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such
orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the
courts make a general observation that "the facts
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
and the circumstances" have been considered. No
specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the
passing of the order by the Court.
25. Such a situation continues despite various
judgments of this Court wherein this Court has
disapproved of such a practice. In Mahipal this Court
observed as follows : (SCC pp. 128-29, para 25)
"25. Merely recording 'having perused the
record' and 'on the facts and circumstances of the
case' does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned
judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open
justice, to which our judicial system is committed,
that factors which have weighed in the mind of the
Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are
recorded in the order passed. Open justice is
premised on the notion that justice should not only
be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be
seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned
decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of
individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well
as the interests of the criminal justice system in
ensuring that those who commit crimes are not
afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges
are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they
have arrived at a conclusion."
(emphasis supplied)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
10. A reading of the order impugned would go to show that
the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the
allegations made against the accused, and on the other hand,
by assigning general reasons, a cryptic order has been passed
by the learned Sessions Judge. Though granting or refusing bail
to an accused is a discretionary order, if it is found that the
discretion is exercised without application of mind, then such
orders cannot be sustained.
11. The defacto complainant had filed an application before
the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission to come on
record and oppose the bail application of the accused. Perusal
of the order sheet of the learned Sessions Judge would go to
show that no orders were passed on the applications filed by
the defacto complainant on 20.01.2025, and on the other hand,
the learned Sessions Judge had proceeded to dispose of the
bail applications by order dated 24.01.2025. Though in the
order impugned it is stated that the Counsel appearing for the
defacto complainant was also heard, learned Counsel for the
defacto complainant has made a submission before the Court
that the defacto complainant was not heard in the matter and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
the advocate who had filed the application on behalf of the
defacto complainant is ready and willing to file an affidavit to
the said effect before this Court.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh's case supra,
has observed in paragraphs 22 to 25 as under:
"22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a
victim under the amended CrPC are substantive,
enforceable, and are another facet of human rights.
The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or
construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We
reiterate that these rights are totally independent,
incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to
those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of
"State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not
tantamount to according a hearing to a "victim" of
the crime.
23. A "victim" within the meaning of CrPC
cannot be asked to await the commencement of
trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to
be heard at every step post the occurrence of an
offence. Such a "victim" has unbridled participatory
rights from the stage of investigation till the
culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or
revision. We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and
"complainant/informant" are two distinct
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not
always necessary that the complainant/informant is
also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of
crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a
"victim" need not be the complainant or informant
of a felony.
24. The abovestated enunciations are not to
be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such
as those present in the Special Acts like the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal
obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting
bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is
constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims
to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous
crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2. Second, where the victims themselves
have come forward to participate in a criminal
proceeding, they must be accorded with an
opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the
right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not
accompanied with the right to be heard at the time
of deciding a bail application, the same may result
in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly
cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and
watching the proceedings from afar, especially
when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the
memory of an injustice eclipses.
25. Adverting to the case at hand, we are
constrained to express our disappointment with the
manner in which the High Court has failed to
acknowledge the right of the victims. It is worth
mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of
2021, as well as the present appellants, are close
relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in
the incident dated 3-10-2021. The specific stance
taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants that the counsel for the "victim" had got
disconnected from the online proceedings and could
not make effective submissions before the High
Court has not been controverted by the
respondents. Thereafter, an application seeking a
rehearing on the ground that the "victim" could not
participate in the proceedings was also moved but
it appears that the same was not considered by the
High Court while granting bail to the respondent-
accused."
13. Since the defacto complainant has made a submission
that he was not given an opportunity of being heard though an
application was filed on behalf of the defacto complainant
before the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is of the opinion
that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
in Jagjeet Singh's case supra, the defacto complainant has to
be given an opportunity of being heard before considering the
bail application of the accused.
14. This Court has got supervisory jurisdiction over all the
criminal courts of the State, and therefore, in exercise of the
powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, if it is found that
the order granting or refusing bail is cryptic and without
application of mind, this Court can always set aside such
orders, and therefore, the submission made on behalf of the
accused that the defacto complainant is required to assail the
order impugned by filing a writ petition, is liable to be rejected.
The ratio in the judgments in Dolat Ram's case supra and
Prashanth Singh Rajput's case supra, are therefore, not
applicable to this case. Under the circumstances, I proceed to
pass the following order:
15. Petitions are allowed. The order impugned dated
24.01.2025 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in Crl. Misc.
Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, are set aside, and
the matter is remitted to the Court of VIII Addl. District &
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25609
C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025
HC-KAR
Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, to consider the bail
applications of accused nos.3 to 10 in Crl. Misc.
Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, afresh after granting
an opportunity of hearing to the defacto complainant.
16. If the accused have any apprehension of being arrested,
it is always open for them to file necessary applications seeking
interim protection before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, and
if any such application is filed on behalf of the accused, the
learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same on priority.
17. The parties/their representatives or their learned Counsel
shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 19.07.2025
and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of Crl.
Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, afresh on
merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period
of one week from the date of appearance of the parties/their
representatives or their learned Counsel.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
