[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Syed Sulaiman @ Tenkasi vs State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
CRL.A No. 450 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.450 OF 2025 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
SYED SULAIMAN @ TENKASI
S/O. SHAIK MEERAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NEAR PFI OFFICE
9TH CROSS, KARUMDAKADAI
AZAD NAGAR
COIMBATORE-627 811
NOTE - THE ASMA A. WHO IS PETITIONER
IN WP.NO.32176/2024
THE WP HAS BEEN CONVERTED
INTO CRIMINAL APPEAL HENCE
AS PER CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Digitally signed by THE ORIGINAL APPELLANT HAS MADE
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA A PARTY IN THIS APPEAL INSTEAD OF ASMA A.
Location: High Court
of Karnataka ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION (CCB)
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(FOR NIA).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
CRL.A No. 450 of 2025
HC-KAR
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4)
OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT 2008 R/W 439 OF
THE CR.P.C., 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
15-6-2023 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.1347 OF 2016 C/W
SESSIONS CASE NO.381 OF 2015 BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT FOR
TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU,WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP appearing for
the State.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of the
bail petition filed by accused No.11, vide order dated
15.06.2023. The learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contends that the trial has already commenced
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
and a substantial number of witnesses have been examined,
i.e., about 100 witnesses, and several more witnesses are
yet to be examined before the trial Court. It is submitted
that the completion of the trial would take several years and
that the accused has already been in judicial custody for
more than 12 years.
3. The learned counsel further submits that the
appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards escort charges, whereas the cost estimated by the
State is Rs.1,58,000/-. It is contended that the appellant's
wife is suffering from 80% disability due to paraplegia, and
considering her serious medical condition, the appellant may
be released for a period of four days out of the amount
already deposited. It is also submitted that writ petition was
earlier filed before this Court seeking reduction of the
amount, which has now been treated as a criminal appeal.
4. The learned counsel also vehemently contends
that in similar cases, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.
No.25411/2024 and W.P. No.9823/2025, has granted interim
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
bail for a period of 30 days. It is submitted that at this
critical stage of his wife's illness, it is the responsibility of the
husband to take care of her, and the support of the appellant
is absolutely necessary. Hence, it is prayed that the accused
be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl.
SPP appearing for the State, would submit that the cost of
providing escort was estimated in 2021, which was
Rs.1,58,000/-, and now in 2026, the cost would be more.
By depositing 50% of the cost, at the cost of the State
exchequer, the accused cannot be released on bail, as the
same is public money and already a large number of
witnesses have been examined in the case on hand, but it is
a case of waging war. The trial Court has also discussed the
same in detail in paragraph Nos.11 to 17.
6. It is further submitted that with regard to the
health condition of the wife of the accused, except for a
document of the year 2022, no other documents have been
produced. The same is evident from the reasoning in
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
paragraph Nos.16 and 17. Though it is contended that the
family of the accused is not able to bear the expenses
imposed by the State for his travel to his native place, this
Court has to observe that sending accused No.11 to his
native place to meet his wife would involve expenditure from
the State exchequer, and hence, there cannot be any such
order.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State,
and also the challenges made with regard to the order
passed by the trial Court dated 15.06.2023, and having
considered the grounds which have been urged, the trial
Court, while passing the order, has taken note in paragraph
No.13 that accused No.11 filed one more application before
this Court to visit his ailing wife on similar grounds, stating
that his wife was admitted to the ICU as an in-patient from
09.06.2021 to 16.06.2021; that she was again admitted to
the ICU on 12.07.2021; and that the chances of survival
were remote. The same was taken note of, and even a
submission was made that he was ready to pay the escort
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
charges to visit his ailing wife. Therefore, this Court, after
considering the grounds urged in the application, allowed
him to visit his ailing wife from 06.00 a.m. on 21.08.2021 to
06.00 p.m. on 24.08.2021, subject to the deposit of
Rs.50,000/- as advance and to deposit the remaining escort
charges, if any, after he returned from his native place.
Thereafter, accused No.11 visited his ailing wife as per the
order of this Court, but he failed to deposit the remaining
escort charges before the Jail Authorities and thereby
violated the order passed by this Court, the same is also
taken note of by the trial Court.
8. In paragraph No.14, the letter sent to the Central
Prison is also taken note of. In paragraph No.15, the memo
seeking permission to visit his ailing wife at his native place
on the same grounds is taken note of, and it is also noted
that his wife sent an email to this Court, which is discussed
in paragraph No.16. An observation is made that
subsequent to the 2022 certificate issued by Dr. T.C.R.
Ramakrishna, nothing has been placed on record, either at
the time of rejecting the application or even subsequent to
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
the rejection of the application dated 15.06.2023, with
regard to the continuation of treatment or further ailment,
although it is stated that the wife is suffering from 80%
disability due to paraplegia.
9. The same aspect is also considered in respect of
the accused who has been in jail for more than 10 years, as
discussed in paragraph No.17, and now the learned counsel
would submit that he has been in custody for more than 12
years. However, earlier, the accused had the benefit of the
order passed by the Court and availed the same only upon
depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, after
returning, he failed to pay the balance amount towards
escort charges and thereby violated the conditions of the
order. Now again, he seeks permission of this Court by
submitting that he would pay Rs.50,000/-, and that he has
already deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Prison Authorities,
but he is not ready to bear the additional expenses.
10. When such being the case, considering the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the State,
NC: 2026:KHC:3102-DB
HC-KAR
it is noted that even in the year 2021, the escort cost itself
was Rs.1,58,000/-, and as of 2026, the cost would be
substantially higher and considering the earlier violation of
the order, as noted in paragraph No.14, and the detailed
discussion in paragraph Nos.16 and 17, we do not find any
ground to grant the relief by setting aside the order of the
trial Court dated 15.06.2023, since the appellant is not ready
to bear the entire escort charges and earlier order also
violated after availing the similar benefit.
11. In view of the discussion made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
