Sameer Ahmad S/O Askar Ali Choudhari vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 3072 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sameer Ahmad S/O Askar Ali Choudhari vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:5263
                                                        CRL.P No. 100639 of 2026


                        HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                       DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                           BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100639 OF 2026

                                 (438 OF CR.PC/482 OF BNSS)

                        BETWEEN:

                        SAMEER AHMAD S/O. ASKAR ALI CHOUDHARI,
                        AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. HANAGAL, TALUK. HANAGAL,
                        DISTRICT: HAVERI-580026.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
                        SRI KUMARGOUDA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

                        AND:

                        THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        (PSI HANAGAL POLICE STATION, HANAGAL),
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN
                        REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING,
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH                 DHARWAD-580010.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
Dharwad Bench
                        (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP.)


                             THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
                        OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (SECTION 482
                        OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING
                        TO    ENLARGE   THE    PETITIONER/ACCUSED     NO.3   ON
                        ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN HANGAL P.S. CRIME NO.33/2026,
                        PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
                        AND JMFC COURT, HANAGAL, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
                        UNDER SECTIONS 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) AND 352 READ
                        WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 IN
                                  -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:5263
                                       CRL.P No. 100639 of 2026


HC-KAR




RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND
ETC.,.

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

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR


                         ORAL ORDER

Heard the arguments of Sri S.B.Doddagoudar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned

HCGP for the respondent State and perused the material

placed before the Court.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on

anticipatory bail in Hangal P.S. Crime No.33/2026, pending

on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court,

Hanagal, for the offences punishable under sections 109,

115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 352 read with section 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in respect of accused

No.3/petitioner is concerned, by allowing this petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5263

HC-KAR

3. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the

complaint averments that in a quarrel with the complainant,

this petitioner/accused No.3 held the hands of the

complainant and accused No.1 had taken a chopper, which

is brought by the petitioner and accused No.1 had assaulted

on the complainant. Therefore, with these allegations a

crime was registered and the offences were foisted against

the accused as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused submitted

that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has only

held the hands of the complainant and accused No.1

assaulted on the complainant with the chopper. This is the

only overtact committed by petitioner/accused No.3.

Therefore, prays to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner/accused No.3 by allowing this petition.

5. The learned HCGP has vehemently objected for

grant of bail to the petitioner and prays to reject the bail

petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5263

HC-KAR

6. Upon considering the averments made in the

complaint it is clear that deadly weapon like chopper was

brought by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has held

the hands of the complainant tightly so as to enable the

accused No.1 to assault on the complainant with the

chopper. Therefore, it is revealed that the petitioner is also

responsible for the overtact committed by accused No.1. If

the petitioner had not held the hands of the complainant

tightly, then the complainant would have escaped. But due

to confinement made by the petitioner by holding the hands

of the complainant tightly, it was easy for accused No.1 to

assault on the complainant. Therefore, for the overtact

alleged, prima facie the petitioner is also found to be

committed the offence with accused No.1.

7. Now investigation is still going on. Charge sheet

is not yet filed. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted

anticipatory bail, then there are chances of absconding and

fleeing away from justice and also threatening the

witnesses. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5263

HC-KAR

merits involved in the case, considering the gravity of the

offence alleged, the Court is of the opinion to reject the

anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.3. Accordingly

the criminal petition is rejected.

Sd/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

MRK /CT-AN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22