[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar @ Naveen @ Bang Naveen vs State Of Karnataka By on 27 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.60 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR @ NAVEEN @ BANG NAVEEN
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.263, NEAR SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE,
ULLALU UPANAGAR, BENGALURU-560056
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
3. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI G
W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.32, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
PAPAIAH GARDEN, BANAGIRI NAGAR,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BENGALURU CITY-560085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.K. BHAT, SPL. PP FOR R1,
V/O DTD: 12/2/26 - R2 PRESENT BEFORE COURT,
SRI. D.S. LINGARAJA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R3.)
-2-
CRL.A No.60 of 2026
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 11.12.2025 ON
BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.6/ APPELLANT
U/S 483 OF BNSS, 2023, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 26.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/accused No.6 has preferred this appeal
against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in Special C.C
No.2147/2025 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court').
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Dhanalakshmi.G,
Channammanakere Achukattu Police have registered case
in Crime No.34/2025 against accused No.1 and his
Associates for the commission of offence under section
2(A) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property
Act, 1981, section 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and
sections 109, 3(5), 324(5), 326(f), 332(c), 351(2),
351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer has arrested the present appellant/accused No.6
and produced before the Court and he has been remanded
to judicial custody. Till this day, the accused is in judicial
custody.
4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has
submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the
commission of offence under sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, section 2(A) of the Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, section
25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sections 109, 3(5),
324(5), 326(f), 332(b), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3(1)(i), 3(4)
of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000.
5. The accused had filed application under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023. Same came to be rejected by the Principal
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Being aggrieved
by the rejection of bail, appellant has preferred this
appeal.
6. Sri R.K. Bhat, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appointed by the State under KCOCA Act has filed written
objection to the appeal, in which it is stated that, the
Criminal appeal seeking bail by accused No.6 is contrary to
true facts of the case. The appellant has not approached
the Court with clean hands and concealed material facts in
the appeal. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The accused No.6-the appellant filed a Criminal
Miscellaneous No.2351/2025 before the special court
under section 483 of BNSS, 2023, which was heard on
merits and was dismissed by the special court constituted
under the KCOCA Act. Later the accused No.6-appellant
filed another successive bail application before the special
court suppressing the rejection of the bail petition, against
the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said bail
petition was devoid of changed circumstances and bereft
of cogent reasons and the same was rejected on
11.12.2025.
8. The facts of the case in nutshell is that the first
informant and her daughter-in-law were sleeping in the
first floor of the house whereas the respondent No.2, the
husband of first informant, was sleeping in the ground
floor of their house. The accused No.1 viz. Rahul was the
associate of the accused No.6. On 23.02.2025 at 12.40
am, the accused came to the house of the first informant
with deadly weapons to enquire the daughter of the first
informant namely Ms. Mamatha, who was kept out of
reach of the accused No.1, interalia the appellant and the
other accused came to the house and damaged the house
committed criminal mischief by committing larking house
trespass by breaking open the door of the first floor as
well as the ground floor and assaulted the
Lakshminarayana Swamy with an intention to commit his
murder who narrowly escaped from assault, however
sustained grievous injury to his left hand. After lodging
complaint, the Police have registered the case and after
obtaining prior approval from the competent authority,
invoked the provisions of KCOCA Act in this case and
having the completed the investigation, after getting the
sanction, charge-sheet was placed before the special court
for the offences shown therein.
9. During the investigation the material evidence
collected, reveal the fact that the offence committed is an
organized crime under the leadership of the accused No.1.
who formed organized crime syndicate in which the
appellant-accused No.6 is the member of the said
organized syndicate and committed the offence of the
organized crime. All the material ingredients of the
offence and the other offences enumerated in the charge-
sheet has been made out in the case.
10. The offence of organized crime was circumscribed
with the issue of the rejected love affair of Mamatha with
the accused No.1 and it is an offence against the women,
forcefully compelling her to marry him, which was opposed
by the parents of Mamatha. Being enraged, the accused
No.1-Rahul formed the organized crime syndicate with the
aid and assistance and active participation of the other
accused including the appellant-accused No.6 have
committed heinous offence against the complainant and
her husband. Hence, the appeal is devoid of reasons to
consider and liable to be dismissed.
11. Further, it is submitted that, the offences against
women are increasing in galloping speed and curbing the
same is a challenging factor and violence against women is
also an organized crime since the definition of the
organized crime is broad enough including the violence,
intimidation, coercion and other advantages. The accused
No.6-appellant with other accused, comes under the ambit
of organized crime since the criminal act of accused No.6
is to be constrictively construed along with other accused,
as accused No.6-appellant has involved in number of
criminal offences and 5 heinous offences punishable for
more than 3 years and cognizable offence within the
preceding ten years of this case, was against the
appellant.
12. The material incriminating evidence was recovered
from the room of the appellant-accused No.6 and
submitted PF No.23/2025 to the Court.
13. The confession statement of the accused No.6 was
also recorded under Section 19 of KCOCA Act who as
confessed the crime before the DCP, East Division,
Bengaluru. All necessary requirements under the provision
of Section 19 of the KCOCA Act, was followed while
recording the confession and the procedure thereafter.
14. The material evidence collected in this case, makes
out the reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
No.6 was a member of the organized syndicate and
committed organized crime and huge damage was caused
to the complainant as well as the their neighbours. The
horrendous and gruesome act of organized crime
committed by the appellant and the gang, has caused and
created panic in the minds of the victim and also the
surrounding area which was to claim supremacy and
undue advantages to compel the victims of the crime to
surrender their daughter-Mamatha. It is against the fabric
of civilized society which has not accepted and not in
practice. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant-accused
No.6 deserves to be dismissed.
15. Further it is stated that, the Hon'ble Supreme court
in JAYSHREE KANABAR v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND
OTHERS reported in (2025) 2 SCC 797, has held that
when there is an embargo in provision of the special act
i.e., Section 22(4)(b) of KCOCA Act, the bail application is
liable to be dismissed. In the appeal, that the grounds
urged are untenable in law and there is no necessity of the
name of the appellant in the First Information Report, is
not a ground to consider the bail application. Respondent
No.3 has filed a memo stating that she has no objection to
grant bail and Respondent No.2 has filed a written
statement. On all these grounds, sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that accused No.6 is innocent and
the complainant-Police have falsely implicated him in this
case. Accused No.6 was neither directly or indirectly
involved in the commission of offence as alleged against
him. The investigation is already completed. The name of
the appellant is not forthcoming in the FIR. Based upon
the voluntary statement of the co-accused, accused No.6
was implicated by the respondent No.1-Police. There are
serious allegations against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, who
have assaulted the respondent No.2, armed with machetes
- 10 -
and committed the alleged act, causing the loss of about
Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant including damages to
the neighbour's properties.
17. The allegation against the accused No.6 is that, he
was involved in conspiracy with co-accused and thereby
gave support to accused No.1. Except such allegation,
there are no other incriminating materials placed by the
prosecution. As per column No.7 of the charge sheet, the
accused No.6 did not go to the alleged place and had
assembled with co-accused in front of Arch at Kengeri
Upanagara. Hence, there are no allegations against the
accused No.6 for assaulting the complainant.
18. Further, he submitted that absolutely there are no
materials to constitute the offence under the provisions of
KCOCA Act. It is also submitted that accused No.6 also
belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, the penal provisions
under the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015, are not applicable to Accused No.6.
19. CW1-Complainant and CW5-daughter of CW1 have
appeared before the Court and submitted that they have
- 11 -
no objection to grant bail. Absolutely there are no prima
facie materials to constitute the alleged offence. Hence,
sought to allow the appeal. To substantiate his argument,
he relied on the following judgments:
(1) RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER -
(2005)5 SCC 294;
(2) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. JAGAN
GAGANSINGH NEPALI @ JAGYA AND
ANOTHER - 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 386.
20. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has reiterated
the averments made in the statement of objection. To
substantiate the argument, he relied on the following
judgments:
(1) ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANOTHER reported in (2022) 8 SCC
282;
(2) ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in
(2023) 20 SCC 408;
(3) NILESH ANAND PAWAR v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1621;
- 12 -
(4) KAVITHA LANKESH v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 753;
(5) JAYSHREE KANABAR v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in
(2025) 2 SCC 797.
21. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the appellant has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the trial Court?
(2) What order?
22. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 in the Negative.
Point No.2 - As per final order.
23. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by
Smt. Dhanalakshmi G, Channammanakere Achukattu
Police have registered the case in Crime No.34/2025
against one Rahul-accused No.1 and his associates for the
- 13 -
commission of offence under section 2(A) of the
Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981,
section 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sections
109, 3(5), 324(5), 326(f), 332(c), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
24. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has
submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the
offence under sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va),
3(2)3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, section 2(A) of the Prevention of Destruction and
Loss of Property Act, 1981, section 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms
Act, 1959 and sections 109, 3(5), 324(5), 326(f), 332(b),
351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3(1)(i), 3(4) of the Karnataka
Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000.
25. During the course of investigation, the accused No.6
who is the appellant in this case, was arrested and was
produced before the Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru in Special CC No.2147/2025. Bail
- 14 -
application was filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read
with 483 of BNSS, 2023. Same came to be rejected.
26. As per prosecution papers, on 22.02.2025 at around
11.45 pm, accused 1 to 6 assembled in front of Sri
Revansiddeshwara Stores in Mankalamma Layout and
entered into a criminal conspiracy as members of an
organized crime syndicate, apprehending that accused
No.1 would lose his influence in the locality due to his
alleged "love failure". In furtherance of the conspiracy,
they went near the complainant's house at about 00.40
hours on 23.02.2025 on three two-wheelers, armed with
machetes, and committed the alleged act, causing a loss
of about Rs.6,00,000/- including damage to neighbours
properties.
27. On careful examination of the entire material on
record, it is clear that the prosecution specifically asserts
that several eye-witnesses viz., CW3 to CW6, CW8 and
CW9, apart from the complainant and the injured CW2,
supports the prosecution version and are competent to
identify the offenders. CCTV footage from the scene of
- 15 -
offence and other supporting materials have also been
collected.
28. Considering all these materials, the trial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that there exists prima facie
materials to indicate involvement of the accused, and the
plea of false implication cannot be accepted. The trial
Court has also observed that the Accused No.6 is involved
in 5 criminal cases, which establishes that the accused
No.6 has criminal antecedent and is facing allegations of
involvement in serious offences.
29. Respondent No.3 - Smt. Dhanalakshmi G who is the
complainant has filed a memo, stating that she has no
objection to grant bail. CW1- Smt. Dhanalakshmi G, is not
an injured, but, she has witnessed the incident and filed
the complaint. Though she has no objection to grant bail,
on the basis of her statement, the accused is not entitled
for bail.
30. In paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment, the trial
court has observed as under:
- 16 -
"17. No doubt, the subsequent bail petitions are
maintainable, provided there are changed
circumstances. The only changed circumstance
projected by the Applicants in these applications are
that after the rejection of the earlier bail petitions the
Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. No
doubt, during investigation the accused will not have
access to the evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer and therefore at that stage he may not be in
a position to urge all the points in support of his plea
for bail. But after filing the charge sheet, since copies
of the papers produced along with the charge sheet
are available to the accused he will be in a better
position to urge valid and acceptable grounds for the
relief of bail. Therefore, in my considered view, filing
of the charge sheet could provide a changed
circumstance for the accused person to file a
successive bail petition.
18. However, the question to be considered is as to
whether there is any circumstance which warrants
taking a different view than the earlier view. In the
case on hand, at the time of filing of bail petitions
the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet.
All those materials are now produced before the
Court along with the charge sheet are available to
the Applications at the time of filing the bail
petitions. The materials produced along with the
charge sheet are not different from the materials
which were made available to this court at the time
of disposal of the earlier bail petitions. Under these
- 17 -
circumstances, I am of the considered view that
there are no changed circumstances warranting
different consideration so as to entertain these
applications. Even otherwise the materials produced
along with charge sheet prima-facie indicate that
these accused persons have criminal antecedents.
Under these circumstances I see no grounds to order
enlargement of the applicants on bail. Therefore, I
hold that the Applicants are not entitled for the relief
of bail. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the
negative."
31. On careful re-examination of the entire material on
record, I do not find any legal or factual error in the
impugned order passed by the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
