Karnataka High Court
Sri Sharath Bhandary vs State Of Karnataka By on 20 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11780
CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHARATH BHANDARY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O SRI RAMESH BHANDARY,
R/AT NO.303 BHADARY NILAYA
4TH FLOOR RADHAMMA RESIDENCY
GARODI MAJALU UDUPI
PERMANENT R/O NO.2-A-3
SANTHEKATTE, GOPALAPURA
UDUPI- 576 105.
2. SMT. MAYURI BHANDARY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI SHARATHA BHANDARY
R/AT NO.303 BHANDARY NILAYA
4TH FLOOR RADHAMMA RESIDENCY
GARODI MAJALU, UDUPI
PERMANENT R/O NO.2-A-3
SANTHEKATTE, GOPALAPURA
Digitally signed by B
UDUPI- 576 105.
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KAVOORU POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU REP BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FRO R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11780
CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.3024/2024
(CRIME NO.148/2023 OF KAVOOR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF
JMFC (III COURT), MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 216 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences
punishable under Section 216 of the IPC, are before this Court
seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that the accused, Sharan @
Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas, was convicted by the Trial Court and
that his conviction was confirmed by this Court on appeal. It is
further alleged that the petitioners--accused Nos. 1 and 2--had
full knowledge that the accused, Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @
Rohidas, was evading arrest and were harboring him in their
house.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent No. 1 (State) submitted that the petitioners,
knowing that Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas had been
convicted of the offence, intentionally harbored him to protect
him from arrest, and therefore, the petition should be
dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.
1 (State) were heard.
NC: 2025:KHC:11780
5. Before addressing the rival contentions, it is
necessary to extract Section 216 of the IPC, which reads as
follows:
Section 216 of the IPC:
"Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an
offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes
from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the
exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant,
orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence,
whoever, knowing of such escape or order for
apprehension, harbors or conceals that person with the
intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall
be punished in the following manner:
(i) If the offence for which the person was in custody or is
ordered to be apprehended is a capital offence punishable
by death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(ii) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life
or with imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, with or without fine; and
(iii) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to one year but not to ten years, he shall be
punished with imprisonment, of the description provided
for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-
fourth of the longest term of the imprisonment provided
for such offence, or with fine, or with both.
For the purposes of this section, "offence" also includes
any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have
been guilty outside India, which, if committed in India,
would have been punishable as an offence, and for which
he is, under any law relating to extradition or otherwise,
liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India;
every such act or omission shall be deemed to be
punishable as if the accused had been guilty of it in
India."
NC: 2025:KHC:11780
6. It is admitted that Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @
Rohidas was on bail during the pendency of the appeal before
this Court. The prosecution, however, has not produced any
material to substantiate that, upon dismissal of the appeal
confirming the judgment of conviction, the petitioners
intentionally harbored the accused to evade his arrest by the
police. In the absence of any evidence establishing that the
confirmation of conviction by this Court, as well as the
accused's subsequent abscondence to evade arrest, occurred
with the knowledge of the petitioners, they cannot be
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 216 of the
IPC. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse
of the process of law.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings in CC No. 3024/2024 arising out of Crime
No. 148/2023 at Kavoor Police Station, pending on the file of
the learned JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, insofar as they relate
to the petitioners--accused Nos. 1 and 2--are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
