[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Ashraf Chalil vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
CRL.P No. 17302 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17302 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ASHRAF CHALIL
S/O BEERANKUTTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT CHALIL HOUSE
VENGARAKUTTELUR
ORAKAM POST, MALAPPURAM
KERALA STATE
PIN-680 562
2. MR. JABIR UTTEN MAVANGAL
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT UTTEN MAVANGAL HOUSE
KILINKKODE, KANNAMAGALAM
Digitally signed by
CHERUR, MALAPPURAM
LAKSHMINARAYANA KERALA STATE
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH PIN-676 304
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
DAVANGERE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
CRL.P No. 17302 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
(FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ON BAIL
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.40/2025 REGISTERED BY THE CEN
CRIME PS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
66(D), 66(C) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND
319(2), 318(3) AND 308(2) OF THE BNS 2023 IN THE FILE OF
THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under
Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime
No.40/2025 of Davanagere CEN Crime Police Station,
registered for offences punishable under Section 66(D),
66(C) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section
319(2), 318(3), 308(2) of BNS.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and
learned Additional SPP for respondent-State.
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that
the alleged money received is by accused Nos.3 and 4.
CW.9 to CW.17 are relatives and friends of accused Nos.3
and 4. The accounts of CW.9 to CW.17 have been used by
accused Nos. 3 and 4 for getting money transferred by the
alleged crime. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is having four
accounts in SBI, Canara Bank, Bank of Maharashtra and
Federal Bank. The statement of bank account of accused
No.1 has been collected. Petitioner No.1 was earlier doing
Bakery business in Bangalore and now working in a Bakery
at Kerala. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is a friend of
accused No.1/petitioner No.1 who was working in Oman
and Dubai and presently he was working in Kerala. The
investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. The
petitioners have no major role in the alleged offences. The
major role played is by accused Nos.3 and 4 and other
accused. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioners are
not required for further custodial interrogation. There are
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
HC-KAR
no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. With this he
prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend
that totally to an extent of Rs.19,67,300/- has been
deposited to the bank account of accused No.1 between
22.01.2025 to 13.02.2025. Accused No.1 has withdrawn
the said amount deposited by cheque and all the accused
have got distributed the said amount. The bank accounts
of CW.9 to CW.17 have been used for getting transfer of
the money by committing digital arrest. There is a
conspiracy by accused Nos.1 to 6 to commit the alleged
offences. There is no explanation by the petitioners
regarding the deposit of huge money to their bank account
between 22.01.2025 to 13.02.2025. Prior to the said
dates, there were no any deposit of huge amount to their
bank account. The further investigation is still going on
and the IO has sought permission for further investigation
and filing of additional charge sheet. If the petitioners are
granted bail, there are chances of them hampering further
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
HC-KAR
investigation and flee from justice and threatening the
prosecution witnesses. With this he prayed to reject the
petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has
perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on
record.
6. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is
that petitioners and accused Nos.5 and 6 are residents of
Kerala State, in Malappuram District and are known to
each other. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was earlier
running a bakery and at that time accused No.3 was
working in the said bakery. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are
residents of Belur Taluk and they are friends. The accused
persons by making WhatsApp call to CW.1 intimating his
involvement in some offence of drug transport and got
transferred several amount to different accounts keeping
CW.1 in digital arrest. The accounts of CW.9 to CW.17 are
used by the accused persons for getting transfer of money
from the account of different persons to the extent of
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
HC-KAR
Rs.26,49,289/-. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have withdrawn the
said money from the account of CW.9 to CW.17 and gave
it to accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 has credited and
has deposited the amount given by accused Nos.3 and 4
to his bank account with SBI between 22.01.2025 to
13.02.2025 to the extent of Rs.19,67,300/- in cash
deposit machine and thereafter withdrew the said amount
and all the accused persons have shared the said amount.
7. CWs.9 to 17 are stated to be the friends and
relatives of accused Nos.3 and 4. On perusal of the
voluntary statement of accused No.1, there is no any
explanation by him regarding he depositing huge money to
his bank account by using cash deposit machine and
withdrawing the same. On perusal of the charge sheet
material, there is prima-facie case against the petitioners
for offences alleged against them. Even though the charge
sheet is filed, the IO has sought permission for further
investigation in the matter. If the petitioners are granted
bail, there are chances of them hampering the further
NC: 2026:KHC:8715
HC-KAR
investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses and
committing similar offences.
8. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners
have not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the
result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
