[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar R @ Chandru vs State By, C.C.B P.S on 16 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16384/2025
BETWEEN :
CHANDRASHEKAR R @ CHANDRU
S/O RAMU A.S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.97, 16TH MAIN, 33RD CROSS
OPP. BENISON SUPER MARKET
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE BY, C.C.B P.S,
BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560 001
2. MANOJ KUMAR H.V
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH H.M
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.497, 14TH CROSS
2
BALAJI LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 079
[RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 09.02.2026]
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJESH G, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY
BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE/CCB P.S.
TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2025 REGISTERED FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 140(2),
308(2), 308(4), 351(2) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023
AND SECTION 3 OF KCOCA ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE
PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-1),
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.02.2026, THIS DAY,
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.9
under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime
No.62/2025 of CCB Bengaluru City Police Station, registered
for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 308(2),
308(4), 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section
3 of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as "KCOC Act" for brevity).
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 -State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as
accused in the FIR. There is no overtact alleged against this
petitioner. There are no cases registered against the
petitioner for the past 10 years to attract offence under
KCOC Act. The petitioner is reputed person in the society
and if he is arrested, it will affect his reputation. Learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Sri
B.A. Basavaraja Vs State of Karnataka and Others in
W.P.No.31304/2025 decided on 19.12.2025 on the point
that if no case is registered against an accused person
within 10 years prior to the commission of the offence then,
KCOC Act cannot be invoked against him. On these
grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted
that respondent No.2 has no objection for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 -State would contend that in the case on
hand, the KCOC Act has been invoked. The offence alleged
against the petitioner is an organized crime under Section 3
of the KCOC Act. There is bar under Section 22(3) of the
KCOC Act to grant anticipatory bail to the accused person
who is alleged to have committed offence under KCOC Act.
The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Bengaluru City
has passed Order dated 23.09.2025 invoking offence
punishable under Section 3 of the KCOC Act and he has
accorded his approval to invoke Section 3 of the KCOC Act.
The petitioner is member of Crime Syndicate. The judgment
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel has been
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.)No(s).57/2026, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has passed order that the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court shall not be relied upon as a binding
precedent. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned
Senior Counsel cannot be relied upon as a binding
precedent. As there is bar under Section 22(3) of KCOC Act
to entertain a petition seeking anticipatory bail, the present
petition is not maintainable. With this, she prayed to reject
the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record.
7. As per complaint, the case of the prosecution is
that on 26.08.2025 around 06.30 p.m., accused -Rajesh
alias Appi and his associate Sheenivas alias Bombay Seena,
Naveen, Lokesh alias Loki, Somaiah, Yukesh, Uday Kumar,
Gawtham, Chandrashekhar, Vinay, Praveen, Khaleel and
Raghavendra alias Raghu alias Bekari Raghu had kidnapped
the complainant -Manoj Kumar with an intention of
extortion ransom amount from him. When the complainant
demanded repayment of the amount given to Nanda
Kishore through Rajesh alias Appi, at the instance of
petitioner Chandrashekhar, all of them conspired and
formed an unlawful assembly, called the complainant
through mobile phone to come near Modi Hospital, Rajaji
Nagar. The complainant reached the said place around
06.30 p.m., and they forcibly made him to sit in vehicle,
took him to Tumkur road till morning. They roamed in the
car in Tumkur road and forcibly made him to transfer
Rs.76,000/- to their account and Rs.2,20,000/- to account
of Sohail and further demanded Rs.10,00,000/- ransom
money. Even though the name of the petitioner has not
been stated in the FIR, but the investigation indicated his
involvement in the commission of the offence. The amount
said to have been lent by the complainant to Nanda Kishore
is at the behest of the petitioner.
8. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes),
Bangalore City has passed the order dated 23.09.2025
accorded his approval to invoke Section 3 of the KCOC Act
and appointed ACP, CCB, OCW(West), Bangalore City as
Investigating Officer. The said order has not been
challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner and other
accused have sought quashing of the FIR in Criminal
Petition No.13647/2025 and subsequently, they withdrew
the said petition on 26.09.2025 with liberty to approach the
Court in the event of final report is filed. There is bar under
Section 22(3) of the KCOC Act to entertain petition seeking
anticipatory bail. The said provision is as under:
"Section 22 (3): Nothing in section 438 of the
Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the
arrest of any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence punishable under this Act."
Considering Section 22(3) of the KCOC Act, petition
seeking anticipatory bail cannot be entertained if the
offence is alleged under Section 3 of the KCOC Act. The
decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner rendered in the case of Sri B.A. Basavaraja
(supra) cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent in
view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated
20.01.2026 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed
order that the said order of this Court shall not be relied
upon as a binding precedent.
9. Considering the above aspects, the petition
seeking grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
