[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Ashok vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701
                                                      CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2026


                      HC-KAR



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200025 OF 2026
                                       (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      SHRI. ASHOK S/O HANAMANTAPPA HOSALE
                      AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER
                      R/O KARDIYAL, TQ: BHALKI
                      DIST: BIDAR
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      R/BY SPL PP LOKAYUKTA KALABURAGI
                      BENCH-585107.
                      (THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA            BIDAR)
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF              (BY SRI.GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, SPL. COUNSEL)
KARNATAKA
                           THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC. 397 OF CR.P.C (OLD)
                      U/SEC. 438 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE
                      THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 20.01.2026 PASSED BY THE
                      PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AND DIRECT
                      THE BIDAR LOKAYUKTHA PS IN CRIME NO.04/2025 AND TO
                      RELEASE THE CASH/AMOUNT SEIZED BY THE LOKAYUKTHA P.S
                      BIDAR, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

                          THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                      ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701
                                     CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2026


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                         ORAL ORDER

Sri Ashok S/o: Hanamantappa Hosale, the petitioner

has filed this petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

following relief:

"Wherefore, for the reasons stated above amongst others, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned orders dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, and direct the Bidar Lokayuktha P.S. in Crime No.04/2025 and to release the cash/amount seized by the Lokayuktha P.S., Bidar, in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The brief facts of the case are that; the

Lokayuta Police have registered a case against one

Dulappa Hanumantappa Hosale, the Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Aurad in Lokayukta Police Station,

Cr.No.04/2025 under Section 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is the

elder brother of Dulappa Hosale. It is alleged that the AGO

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

has managed to hide some of valuables and documents in

his house as well as in the house of relatives. The

Lokayukta Police have seized the amount in question from

the house of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner had filed

Criminal Misc.No.617/2025 before the Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Bidar, which came to be rejected.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this

revision petition.

3. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner,

the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in

(2002) 10 SCC 283.

4. The statement of objection is filed by the

respondent-Lokayukta, in which it is stated that the entire

case of the petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on

facts. The petitioner has not made out any case for

exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 r/w

442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Further,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

it is submitted that the accused Sri.Dhulappa S/o:

Hanumanth Hosale, working as Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Aurad (B), resident of House No.8-9-318/1,

Siddheshwar Nilaya, Gurunagar Colony, Bidar, has been

found in possession of assets disproportionate to his

known source of income. Accordingly, a case has been

registered on 13.10.2025 by the Bidar Lokayukta Police in

Crime No.04/2025 under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently, the

raid has been conducted by obtaining search warrant.

Pursuant to the registration of the case, searches were

conducted at various premises including the residential

house of accused at Bidar and his ancestral house situated

at Karadiyal Village, Bhalki Taluk, where his parents

reside. The matter is presently under investigation. During

the search of House No.156 of Karadiyal Village of Bhalki

Taluk, an amount of Rs.80,88,000/- was found. This house

is the ancestral property of the accused, and the election

identity cards of the accused and his wife reflect this

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

address. The parents of the accused reside in this house,

and the accused is the head of the family. The accused

and his wife have also purchased lands in Karadiyal

Village. During the search of ancestral house, among the

seized documents, the following 11 documents are related

to the accused Dhulappa, his wife Rani @ Renuka, his

brother-in-law Parameshwar and his father-in-law

Neelakanth Rao, which are as follows:

i. D-3 Sale deed No. 11985/18-19 - land purchased in the name of accused's wife.

ii. D-4 Sale deed No. 6349/22-23 - site purchased in the name of accused's wife.

iii. D-5 Sale deed No. 5992/17-18 - land in the name of Parameshwar i.e brother-in-law.

iv. D-6 Sale deed No. 514/12-13 - land in the name of Parameshwar.

v. D-7 Sale deed No. 850/09-10 - land in the name of father-in-law of accused i.e. Neelakanth Rao. vi. D-8 Agreement for sale (Rs. 6,50,000/-) in the name of accused Dhoolappa.

vii. D-11 Digital Khata (Form 11-B) of site in Karadiyal village in wife's name having bearing no 150600301700120070.

viii. D-14 RTC and Khata of Survey No. 37/2 of Dhannur (H) village and bank account copy of Corporation Bank, Bidar, in the name of Neelakanth Rao.

ix. D-15 Kubota tractor insurance cover note No. F1801906 in the name of Neelakanth Rao.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

x. D-21 Tata AIA Life Insurance policy copy in the name of accused.

xi. D-22 Aadhaar card copy of accused's wife Renuka.

5. The learned Special Counsel appearing for the

respondent-Lokayukta has relied on the decision of this

Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K.Krishna

Gowda and Another, in Criminal Revision Petition

No.361/2003 dated 04.10.2005.

6. From this, it is evident that the accused and the

Revision Petitioner Ashok and their parents maintain close

relations. The accused frequently visits his native village,

has purchased lands and sites there and has entered into

agreements for property purchase. This establishes a

direct connection between the accused and the Karadiyal

house. The Revision petitioner who is the brother of

accused, has filed the application seeking release of seized

cash amounting to Rs.80,88,000/- before the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.617/2025, which was rejected on

21.02.2026. The petitioner has filed this revision petition

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

against the said order. Further, it is submitted that

accused is in continuous contact with his native village,

frequently visit the premises and has invested in

properties therein. Hence, there exists a direct and strong

nexus between the accused and the premises from where

the cash was seized. During the course of search

proceedings, the revision petitioner was repeatedly

questioned regarding the ownership and source of the

seized cash. However, he categorically stated at that time

that the said money did not belong to him. He further

failed to furnish any explanation regarding the source of

the money. Even, at the time of opening the bag, the

revision petitioner claimed that it contained books and was

unaware of the presence of cash. The subsequent claim

made by the revision petitioner in the present application

is therefore an afterthought and lacks credibility. A

detailed mahazar was drawn at the time of search and the

entire proceedings was videographed. The SD card

containing the videography has been submitted before the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

Court, thereby lending credibility to the prosecution case.

The contention of the revision petitioner that the accused

was not residing with his parents since 2002 is false. The

accused has consistently shown the Karadiyal village

address in official documents such as Aadhaar and other

records, thereby establishing his continued association

with the said premises. The revision petitioner claimed to

have earned the amount through painting work and

private employment in Hyderabad and his wife has

independent income. However, no material or

documentary evidence supporting such claims was shown

during the search. The Revision petitioner owns only 2

acres of land and resides in a rented house at Kalaburagi

along with children pursuing Engineering Education. In

such circumstances, accumulation of such a huge amount

is highly improbable. The Revision petitioner has failed to

produce any documentary evidence, such as sale

agreements, bank transactions, or receipts to substantiate

his claim that he received amounts from various persons

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

including Baburao Veerashetty, Dhanraj Hosale or others.

The explanations furnished are inconsistent and lack

evidentiary support. The Revision petitioner has failed to

provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the source

of the seized cash either at the time of search or

thereafter. No intimation was given to any competent

authority regarding receipt of such a large sum. The

material on record clearly indicates that the seized cash

belongs to the accused and the revision petitioner is

attempting to shield him. The amount was kept for the

purpose of purchasing land is not supported by any

material. The story appears to be a fabricated one, created

after registration of the case with an intention to mislead

the investigation. At Annexures-C and D to this petition,

the petitioner has annexed the bills of which he had

received after selling the gold ornaments in shop. The

dates of bill annexed by the petitioner at Annexure-C are

between 01.10.2025 to 10.10.2025 and the invoice

Number between 500-530, which shows that bills are only

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

created for the purpose of this petition and further at

Annexure-D, petitioner has annexed the invoice of gold

and silver from the jewelers. The invoices are created for

the purpose of this application as the invoice dates clearly

shows that they are consecutive but are shuffled and

annexed to this petition. The dates of the annexed

invoices are between 03.05.2025 to 07.05.2025,

10.06.2025 and 12.06.2025, 04.08.2025 to 09.08.2025,

27.09.2025 and 02.10.2025 and 07.10.2025. Further it is

submitted that at Annexure-F, the petitioner has annexed

the bank account statement of one Dhanraj, which only

shows the number of transaction from 22.12.2023 to

06.10.2025 and only the major transactions are made till

29.04.2025 and raid has been conducted on 14.10.2025

and in these transactions are mere cash withdrawal and

does not make any case for the petitioner that one

Dhanraj has given his whole pension benefits to petitioner,

this account statement has been annexed to mislead the

Court. Further it is submitted that the claim amount said

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

to be sourced from pension benefits or from relatives is

not supported by any documentary evidence. No

agreements or bank transactions have been produced. The

claim appears to be false and an attempt to secure the

seized money. It is equally settled law that the in matters

involving corruption cases, the same is treated to be

violative of Human Rights as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan

Singh reported in AIR 2012 SC 1185. Hence, it is

submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of any

relief to the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the

petitioner has raised the disputed questions of fact which

are to be decided only after full pledged trial. That being

the case, the present case is not one for exercise of any

jurisdiction under Section 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya

Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Further, it is submitted

that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

the presumption is against the accused. Once, the

presumption is against the accused, it is for the accused to

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

establish that he was innocent, by leading rebuttal

evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, the present

case deserves to be tried before the trial Court. On these

grounds, sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the petitioner and also learned Spl. Counsel for

Lokayukta.

8. I have perused the materials placed before this

Court.

9. On the basis of the complaint of Babasaheb, the

Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station,

Bidar, the case was registered against the accused

Dhulappa S/o: Hanamanth Hosale, Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Aurad, for the commission of offence under

Section 13(1)(B) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. On 14.10.2025, the Lokayukta

Police have searched the house of Dhulappa S/o:

Hanamanth Hosale, his parents and also the brother of

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

accused Ashok in House No.156 of Karadiyal Village, Tq:

Bhalki, Dist: Bidar. In view of the mahazar, the

Investigating Officer has seized 23 documents and also

cash of Rs.80,88,000/-. The petitioner has produced the

tax invoice issued by Shri Dhanalakshmi Digwal Jewellers

Manohar Jewellers and the petitioner has also produced

the pension payment order issued by the Principal

Accountant General (A and E), Karnataka, Bengaluru,

pertaining to the Assistant teacher Shri.Dhanraj. The Trial

Court in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has observed as follows:

"7. Point No.1: 1 have carefully gone through the grounds urged by the petitioner in his petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had kept some cash for the purpose of purchasing agricultural land. He has further contended that some part of amount belongs to the brother of petitioner by name Shivraj and his wife Jyothi. It is further contended that some part of amount belongs to brother of petitioner who has retired from service and he has received the same as pensionary benefit.

8. The grounds urged by the petitioner in his petition does not inspire the confidence of the court.

The petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that the seized amount legally belongs to him. The counsel for petitioner has produced certain attested copies of receipts belonging to M/s Shri. Dhanalaxmi Digwal Jewelers which were dated between 01.10.2025 to 10.10.2025. The said

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2701

HC-KAR

receipts seems to be created only for the purpose of submitting before the court. The said receipts does not inspire the confidence of the court. There is no reason for brothers of petitioner to keep hefty amount in the house of the petitioner. The reasons assigned by the petitioner for the purpose of releasing the amount to his name seems to be unnatural and does not inspire confidence of the court. Apart from it the petitioner has not produced any sale deed to show that recently the lands have been sold and cash has been kept in the house. For all the reasons stated supra it can be said that the petitioner has failed to make out reasonable grounds to allow the petitioner. Hence, I answer point No.1 in Negative."

10. The present revision petitioner claimed that the

seized amount was on the basis of the bills issued by Shri

Dhanalakshmi Digwal Jewellers and Manohar Jewellers.

Whether the petitioner had kept this cash for purchasing of

agricultural land requires investigation. At this stage, on

the basis of the grounds urged by the petitioner, it is not

just and proper to express any opinion with regard to the

genuineness of the bills and account statement produced

by the petitioner. Hence, the trial Court has properly

appreciated the materials on record and passed the

impugned order. I do not find any grounds to interfere

- 15 -