Abdul Hameed vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC:11178
                                                          CRL.P No. 323 of 2026


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                                 BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 323 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                             483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    ABDUL HAMEED
                            S/O ZAKARIYA
                            AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
                            KAYATADKA HOUSE, MARDALA
                            ITOOR GRAMA, SUNKADAKATTE POST
                            PUTTUR TALUK
                            DAKSHINA KANNADA KARANATAKA - 575 007.

                      2.    MOHAMMED SADIQ
                            S/O ISMAIL
                            AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
                            R/AT No.3-646, ADYAR PADAVU
                            ADYAR POST, MANGALORE TALUK
                            DAKSHINA KARNATAKA-575 007.
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI       (BY SRI MUHAMMAD IRSHAD M H, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             AND:

                      1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY NELAMANGALA RURAL PS
                            REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT BUILDING
                            BANGALORE- 01.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI M R PATIL, HCGP)
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:11178
                                        CRL.P No. 323 of 2026


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
UNDER SECTION 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO A ENLARGE
PETITIONER No.1 (ACCUSED No.11) ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CR.No.53/2025 OF NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION,
NOW PENDING AS SPL.CC.No.1704/2025 BEFORE THE LD. PRL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-1), FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 111, 61(2)(A) OF
BNS; SECTION 29 OF THE NDPS ACT; AND SEC.3(1)(ii), 3(2),
AND 3(4) OF THE KCOC ACT AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                       ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioners -accused Nos.11

and 12 under Section 483 of BNS praying to grant bail in

Spl.C.C.No.1704/2025 arising out of Crime No.53/2025 of

Nelamangala Rural Police Station pending on the file of

Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-1)

registered for offences punishable under Sections 111,

61(2)(A) of BNS, Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to

as "NDPS Act" for brevity) and 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of

Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as "KCOC Act" for brevity) .

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned HCGP for the respondent -State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

that the petitioner -accused No.11 is alleged to have been

member of the Garuda gang and alleged to have conspired

with the other accused to kidnap C.W.1. Accused No.11 is

stated to have went with Rahil to the garage of C.W.33

and took the Baleno car left for repair by accused No.10

and in the case of trial, they took the car along with the

garage worker C.W.34. On the way, accused No.11 and his

friend Rahil assaulted the C.W.34 and robbed the said

Baleno car and took away the said car and gave it to

accused No.3. There are no serious allegations against this

petitioner -accused No.12. Accused No.12 is stated to be

brother-in-law of accused No.3, who is stated to have

given him Rs.2,50,000/- and he has transferred the said

amount to different accounts. Accused No.12 is not having

any criminal antecedents. Accused Nos.14 and 15 have

been granted bail. Both petitioners are the cab drivers and

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

they are having children who are dependent on them. He

replied upon the decision of the C-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Criminal Petition No.5587/2023 wherein it is held

as under;

11. In Ranjitsing's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was considering the rigor of similar provisions in paragraphs 36 to 38 and 46, has observed as under:

"36. Does this statute require that before a person is released on bail, the court, albeit prima facie, must come to the conclusion that he is not guilty of such offence? Is it necessary for the court to record such a finding? Would there be any machinery available to the court to ascertain that once the accused is enlarged on bail, he would not commit any offence whatsoever?

37. Such findings are required to be recorded only for the purpose of arriving at an objective finding on the basis of materials on record only for grant of bail and for no other purpose.

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

38. We are furthermore of the opinion that the restrictions on the power of the court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The satisfaction of the court as regards his likelihood of not committing an offence while on bail must be construed to mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such an expansive meaning is given, even likelihood of commission of an offence under Section 279 of the Penal Code, 1860 may debar the court from releasing the accused on bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity. What would further be necessary on the part of the court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of an organised crime either directly or indirectly. The court at the time of considering the application for grant of

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

bail shall consider the question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea. Every little omission or commission, negligence or dereliction may not lead to a possibility of his having culpability in the matter which is not the sine qua non for attracting the provisions of MCOCA. A person in a given situation may not do that which he ought to have done. The court may in a situation of this nature keep in mind the broad principles of law that some acts of omission and commission on the part of a public servant may attract disciplinary proceedings but may not attract a penal provision.

46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby."

12. In the case of CHENNA BOYANNA KRISHNA YADAV VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER - (2007)1 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 has observed as under:

"16. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the appellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA. What is to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the two offences, he has been charged with, and

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

further that he is not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail. As noted above, the circumstance which has weighed with the High Court to conclude that the appellant had the knowledge of the organized crime syndicate of Telgi, printing fake stamps, etc. and these were being sold under the protection of the appellant and hence he had abetted an organised crime, is the alleged conversation between him and Telgi in January 1998, after the kidnapping incident. In our view, the alleged conversation may show the appellant's acquaintance with Telgi but may not per se be sufficient to prove the appellant's direct role with the commission of an organized crime by Telgi, to bring home an offence of abetment in the commission of organized crime falling within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA and/or that he had rendered any help or support in the commission of an organised crime whether before or after the commission of such offence by a member of an organised crime syndicate or had abstained from taking lawful measures under MCOCA, thus, falling

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

within the purview of Section 24 of MCOCA. It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail."

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent -

State would contend that the voluntary statement of the

accused No.11 itself indicates that he is having criminal

antecedents involved in three cases including the dealing

in drugs. His statement has been recorded by

Superintendent of Police and it is having presumptive

value. Accused No.12 is the relative of accused No.3, who

has kidnapped C.W.1 and robbed the cash and gave it to

this accused No.12, who has transferred the amount to

different accounts. The charge sheet materials show prima

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

facie case against petitioners for offences alleged against

them. One of the offences alleged is provided with

sentence which may extend to imprisonment for life. With

this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on

the record.

6. As per charge sheet, the case of the

prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 15 are members of

the organized crime syndicate by name Team Garuda.

Accused Nos.1 to 11 conspired to kidnap C.W.1. In

furtherance of the said conspiracy on 24.01.2025, the

accused persons kidnapped C.W.1 and took him to

different places and extorted money from him and

demanded further money from C.W.1. Accused persons

total extorted Rs.11,96,000/- from C.W.1 and out of them

Rs.11,83,626/- has been recovered at the instance of

accused persons. There is allegation against accused

No.11, that he is member of Grada gang and he has

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

involved in commission of offences along with accused

Nos.1 and 2. On 23.01.2025, the accused No.1 went to an

open space wherein members of Garada gang were

gathering wherein leaders -accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along

with the others i.e., accused Nos.4, 7, 8 and 10 came

there and altogether consumed drugs. Accused No.1 told

the others to identify the customers for drug peddling and

they also planned to kidnap some businessmen and to rob

cash and ornaments from them. Accused No.1 who was

also present there along with other accused has agreed for

the said conspiracy. Accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.01.2025

have followed C.W.1, who was going towards Nelamangala

in vehicle and they followed him along with others and on

26.01.2025 at about 05.00a.m. they stopped C.W.1,

kidnapped him and robbed money from him and got

transferred amount from his account to different accounts.

The petitioner -accused No.11 on 22.02.2025 at the

instructions of accused No.3 went along with his friend

Rahil to the garage of C.W.33 and took the vehicle given

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

by accused No.10 for trial, along with C.W.34 -garage

worker in the said garage. On the way, this petitioner -

accused No.11 assaulted C.W.34 and took the Baleno car

and gave it to accused No.3. Accused No.11 is involved in

three criminal cases. The provisions of KCOC have been

invoked against the petitioner -accused No.11. The

statement of accused No.11 has been recorded by the

Superintendent of Police, wherein he has admitted his

involvement in the commission of alleged offence and

member of organized crime syndicate. The said voluntary

statement recorded by the Superintendent of Police is

having presumptive value. Considering the said aspects,

there is prima facie case against the petitioner -accused

No.11 for offences alleged against him and therefore he

has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

7. The allegation against accused No.12 is that he

is relative of accused No.3 and he has received

Rs.2,50,000/- from accused No.3 and transferred them to

different accounts and what remained with him is Rs.550/-

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

and he has spent them. There are no criminal antecedents

of accused No.12. Considering the said aspect, the

petitioner -accused No.12 has made out grounds for grant

of bail with conditions.

8. In the result, the following

ORDER

i) The petition is partly allowed. (The bail

petition by petitioner -accused No.11 is

dimissed. The bail petition by petitioner -

accused No.12 is allowed)

ii) The petitioner -accused No.12 is granted bail in

Spl.C.C.No.1704/2025 arising out of Crime No.-

53/2025 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station

pending on the file of Principal City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-1) subject to

following conditions:

a) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall execute

a bail bond for a sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11178

HC-KAR

two sureties for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.

b) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not

tamper the prosecution witnesses either

directly or indirectly.

c) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall attend

the trial court on all dates hearing unless

exempted and co-operate for speedy

disposal of the case.

d) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not

involve in commission of any offence. If the

petitioner -accused No.12 is found involved

in commission of any offence, the

prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation

of bail granted to him.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48