GUNDA MANOHAR RAO v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
i) The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 35(3), 318(4), 319(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 ss. 66, 66(C), 66(D), 72
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1. They do not have any criminal antecedents. They are ready and willing to co-operate with the police in the investigation. Under the…
- Para 88. Accordingly, the following ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.34/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C)…
Judgment
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25557 CRL.P No. 465 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT AN ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CYBER CRIME P.S., BANGALORE TO RELEASE THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.34/2025 REGISTERED FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(4) AND 319(2) OF BNS- 2023 AND SECTIONS 66, 66(C), 66(D) AND 72 OF IT ACT 2000, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 45TH ACJM COURT, BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER The petitioners who are apprehended in Crime No.34/2025 registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D) and 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS, 2023, are before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25557 CRL.P No. 465 of 2026 HC-KAR
The FIR in Crime No.34/2025 was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station for the aforesaid offences against unknown persons based on the first information dated 09.08.2025 received from Prakash M., authorized representative of the Company known as Whizdm Finance Private Limited Company. Since, the jurisdictional police during the course of investigation had issued enquiry notice to the petitioners, they apprehended arrest in the said case and therefore, had approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.8374/2025 which was dismissed on 09.10.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1. They do not have any criminal antecedents. They are ready and willing to co-operate with the police in the investigation. Under the similar circumstances, this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to similarly situated accused persons in - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25557 CRL.P No. 465 of 2026 HC-KAR Crl.P.No.15337/2025. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however, does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The material on record would go to show that FIR in the present case has been registered against unknown persons. The petitioners have now received the notice under Section 35(3) of BNS, 2023 and therefore, they apprehend arrest. The petitioners who have no other criminal antecedents have undertaken to co-operate to the police for the purpose of investigation. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and maximum punishment said offences imprisonment for a period of seven years. Under similar circumstances, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to similarly situated accused persons Crl.P.No.15337/2025. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25557 CRL.P No. 465 of 2026 HC-KAR
Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be answered affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions.
Operative part
Accordingly, the following ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.34/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D), 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day, and execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25557 CRL.P No. 465 of 2026 HC-KAR b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer on every Sunday for a period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier. c) The petitioners co-operate with Investigating Officer in investigation, and appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called for. d) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or homage to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: i) The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 35(3), 318(4), 319(2); Information Technology Act, 2000 — ss. 66, 66(C), 66(D), 72.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 09 Aug 2025. The bench was S VISHWAJITH SHETTY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.