[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rakesh P vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19808
CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12870 OF 2025
(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAKESH P.
S/O PUTTARANAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT MARABAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-01.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GEETHA P G REP. BY HULIYAR POLICE STATION
Location: TUMKURU DISTRICT
HIGH REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. AYUB ALI KHAN, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.482 OF
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19808
CRL.P No. 12870 of 2025
HC-KAR
ARREST IN C.C.NO.659/2024 IN CONNECTION TO CRIME
NO.201/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, C.N. HALLI,
TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 394 READ WITH 34 OF IPC., BY HULIYAR POLICE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in C.C.No.659/2024
in connection with Crime No.201/2023 pending on the file of
the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, C.N.Halli, Tumkur
District for the offences punishable under Section 394 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2. Petitioner is accused no.1 in the above case. It is the
case of prosecution that on 31.10.2023, at about 08.10 to
08.15 p.m., when CW.2 - Srinivasa was proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-44/R-4971 along with
CW.1 - Poornima and CW.3 - Nachiketh from Bellara towards
his village, accused nos.1 to 4 along with a juvenile in conflict
with law, followed them in a Car and near Bellara Gollarahatti
NC: 2026:KHC:19808
HC-KAR
road, waylaid the car and accused no.1 assaulted CW.2 with a
phopper on his forehead and snatched a gold mangalya chain
weighing about 41.930 grams from CW.1 and threatened them
with dire consequences and fled away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
pursuant to the incident alleged in the instant case, the
petitioner was arrested in some other case and while he was in
custody, a body warrant was issued and the required
interrogation and investigation in the present case is completed
and the presence of the petitioner is not required for further
investigation. He submits that Bail is the rule and jail is an
exception and the petitioner requires to be enlarged on bail in
the event of his arrest. He further submits that without any
requirement, the respondent-Police are trying to arrest the
petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a law abiding
citizen, has the necessary properties to furnish surety and he
would abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed,
if the bail were to be granted.
4. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent contends that
the petitioner has not been arrested in the present case.
NC: 2026:KHC:19808
HC-KAR
However, he submits that statements of CW.1 to CW.3 clearly
disclose that the petitioner is the one who assaulted CW.2, with
a chopper and snatched the gold chain from CW.1. He further
submits that the petitioner has been identified by the
complainant in the Test Identification Parade and there is one
more case against him and he is a habitual offender. He also
submits that the petitioner is not attending the proceedings
before the trial court, though Non-Bailable Warrant is issued
against him and he is absconding. He submits that in the event
of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, there is a
possibility of him threatening the witnesses and also jumping
the bail and for the said reason, he prays for dismissal of the
petition.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the investigation has been completed, and hence, the
petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail cannot be accepted.
6. The material on record clearly discloses that the petitioner
was armed with a chopper and he assaulted CW.2 and snatched
the gold mangalya chain from CW.1. It is a heinous offence
which is punishable for a term which may extend upto ten
NC: 2026:KHC:19808
HC-KAR
years. Further, it is admitted that the petitioner has been
involved in a similar case in Crime No.110 of 2023 wherein he
has been accused for the offences punishable under Sections
394, 397 and 201 of IPC. Further, he has absconded and has
not appeared before the trial court. These facts justify the
apprehension of the learned Additional SPP that the petitioner
is likely to threaten the witnesses and also jump bail, if he is
enlarged on bail. Hence, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
