Karnataka High Court
Shri. Mallappa S/O Siddappa Ninganuri vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100752 OF 2025
(438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA NINGANURI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA NINGANURI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI BASAGOUDA S/O. DUNDAPPA NINGANURI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by V
AND:
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.11
14:28:16
+0530 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
FOR SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS
2023, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY ENLARGING
THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SC NO. 66/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI ARISING OUT OF SANKESHWAR PS CR.NO.
203/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 498(A), 307, 324, 342, 506
OF IPC, 1860 IN SO FOR AS PETITIONERS ACCUSED NO. 2 T 4 ARE
CONCERNED.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for
petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in the FIR in
Crime No.203/2017 of Sankeshwar Police Station, Belagavi
District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
307, 324, 342, 506 of IPC.
3. Police after thorough investigation, dropped the
present petitioners while filing the charge sheet and
charge sheet is now filed only against the husband of the
complainant, who is accused No.1.
4. However, the apprehension of the petitioners is
that the complainant has filed an application under Section
319 of Cr.P.C. and sought for permission of the Court to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
arraign them as additional accused, in which event, there
is possibility of arrest of the petitioners.
5. Therefore, there is real apprehension of arrest
made out on behalf of the petitioners which has not been
properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge while
rejecting their request for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Further, Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel
for petitioners contends that the charge sheet is only
against the accused No.1, there may be grant of
anticipatory bail for limited period following the dictum of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurubaksh Singh
Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and principles therein was
reiterated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State Of
Maharashtra and others2 and sought for allowing the
petition.
7. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent would
(1980) 2 SCC 565
(2011) 1 SCC 694
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
contend that in the investigation initially found that there
is no case made out against the petitioners and therefore,
they were dropped from charge sheet. As such, there is
no apprehension of arrest which is a sine qua non for
entertaining the anticipatory bail and thus sought for
dismissal of the petition.
8. She would further contend that the learned
Trial Judge while entertaining the application filed under
Section 319 by the complainant to implead the present
petitioners as additional accused, following the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh
vs. State of Punjab and others3 has issued summons to
the petitioners. As such, there cannot be any apprehension
of arrest and thus sought for dismissal of the petition.
9. Having heard both the parties, this Court is of
the considered opinion that since the petitioners have
shown as accused Nos.2 to 4 in the FIR and subsequently
Investigating Agency has dropped the present petitioners
(2014) 3 SCC 92
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
while filing the charge sheet, prima facie there is no scope
for the apprehension expressed by the petitioners.
10. Nevertheless, complainant has filed an
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial
Court and summons have been issued and in the
interregnum, their apprehension of arrest cannot be ruled
out.
11. Accordingly, case is made out for exercising the
special power vested in this Court.
12. Hence, the following :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail,
if they are arrested pursuant to the orders
passed by the learned Trial Judge summoning
them as proposed additional accused in the
pending trial by taking a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.50,000/- each for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313
(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court
and participate in the proceedings by filing
necessary objections in accordance with law.
(iv) Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.
(v) Petitioners shall not in any manner tamper the
prosecution evidence.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:PA
