The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2427/2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 IN CRL.P No. 2427/2025: BETWEEN: SELVAMANI S S/O SUNDARA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL SECTION, S.M.F.G.INDIA CREDIT CO. LTD., CHENNAI CITY - 32 R/AT NO.22, 17TH CROSSS MAZIDI COLONY, GINDI, CHENNAI-32. (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.) AND: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERIYAPATNA P.S, BY ITS S.H.O MYSORE DIST., REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. HARISH G.J. S/O JAYASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF GARUDANA HALLI HANGAL VILLAGE ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102. 3. SHARATH KUMAR P.M S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR RESIDENT OF B.M. ROAD PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107. 4. NUTHAN A.C S/O CHANDRA K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDENT OF ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. 5. RAGHUVEER S/O MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT ITTAGA HALLI VILLAGE PANCHAVALLI POST KASABA HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107. 6. KIRAN S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT RENUKA NAGARA NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R-3 & R-5) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 HARISH. G.J, SHARATH KUMAR,P.M., NUTHAN A.C., RAGHUVEER AND KIRAN BY ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 IN CR.NO.324/2024 REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4), 316(5) 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) OF BNS. IN CRL.MISC.NO.5009/2025 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR IN CRL.P NO. 2290/2025: BETWEEN: SELVAMANI S S/O SUNDARA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION: SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL SECTION, S.M.F.G.INDIA CREDIT CO. LTD., CHENNAI CITY - 32 R/AT NO.22, 17TH CROSS, MAZIDI COLONY, GINDI,CHENNAI - 32. (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERIYAPATNA P.S. BY ITS S.H.O., MYSORE DIST REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KIRAN KUMAR K.R S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDENT OF KANTHEKOPPALU VILLAGE, ANTHARSANTHE POST AND HOBLI, KOMALAPURA POST BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DIST - 571 114. (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R-2) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 KIRAN KUMAR.K.R. BY ORDER DATED IN CR.NO.324/2024 REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE CRL.MISC.NO.5004/2025 24.01.2025 IN - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4), 316(5) 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) OF BNS. IN CRL.P NO. 2429/2025: BETWEEN: SELVAMANI S S/O SUNDARA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION: SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL SECTION, S.M.F.G. INDIA CREDIT CO. LTD,CHENNAI CITY - 32 R/AT NO. 22, 17TH CROSS, MAZIDI COLONY, GINDI, CHENNAI - 32. (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR S.P, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERIYAPATNA P.S. BY ITS S.H.O., MYSORE DIST. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PULIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KALEGOWDA S/O JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOSAMALA VILLAGE, ANTHARSANTHE POST AND HOLI, HD KOTE TALUQ MYSORE DIST - 571 114. (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI PREREET JAIN, ADV., FOR SRI P. MAHESHA, ADV., FOR R-2) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THE LRD. VIII ADLL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE SITTING AT HUNSUR TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 KALEGOWDA BY ORDER DATED - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR 24.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5003/2025 IN CR.NO.324/2024 REGISTERED BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318(4), 316(5) 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) OF BNS. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. These three petitions under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to accused nos.3 to 10 in Crime No.324/2024 registered by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.324/2024 was registered by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for the aforesaid offences against Manoj and nine others based on the first information dated 27.12.2024 received from the petitioner herein who is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR the Company Executive of SMFG India Pvt. Ltd. Apprehending arrest in the said case, private respondents in these three petitions who are arrayed as accused nos.3 to 10 in the FIR had filed Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which were allowed by order dated 24.01.2025. Assailing the said order, the defacto complainant is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the accused. He submits that though the defacto complainant had filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission of the Court to oppose the bail application filed by the accused persons, the defacto complainant was not granted an opportunity and no orders were passed on the application filed by the defacto complainant. He submits that the accused persons are involved in committing misappropriation of huge amount which belongs to gullible farmers and the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the said aspect of the matter, has erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER - (2022)9 SCC 269, and in the case of JAGJEET SINGH & OTHERS VS ASHISH MISHRA ALIAS MONU & ANOTHER - (2022)9 SCC 321. 5. Per contra, learned Counsels appearing for the accused submit that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years and triable by the Court of Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a discretionary order which cannot be found fault with. The accused persons have cooperated with the Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation. Cancellation of bail granted to the accused is not sought on the ground that they have not complied with the terms and conditions of the bail order, or in view of the supervening circumstances, but the order has been questioned on the ground that it is a illegal and erroneous order. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have questioned the said order by filing a writ petition, and the petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, is not maintainable. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the judgment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DOLAT RAM & OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA - (1995)1 SCC 349, and in the case of PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2022)14 SCC 645. 6. Learned HCGP submits that no recovery has been done from the accused till date and notices have been issued to the petitioner for the purpose of producing necessary documents before the Investigation Officer, and the investigation is under progress. 7. In the first information, it is alleged that accused persons in conspiracy, had created a list of 141 fictitious persons and had sanctioned loan to the said persons to the tune of Rs.49,23,700/-, and thereafter transferred the said loan amount to the bank account of other customers and had illegally withdrawn the same, and thereby had misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.49,23,700/- belonging to the Company. Accused nos.3 to 10 who were working in the branch office of the company at Periyapatna during the relevant time, had filed applications seeking anticipatory bail before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, and the said applications were allowed on 24.01.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. A reading of the order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge would go to show that absolutely no reasons are assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons. Except stating that the allegations made in the complaint are to be proved during trial and personal liberty of the accused is required to be safeguarded, there is no other reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to the accused. Though there is an allegation against the accused of misappropriating a sum of Rs.49,23,700/-, the learned Sessions Judge has made an observation that there is no necessity to recover any property from the accused. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y's case supra, in paragraphs 24 & 25, has observed as under: "24. The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the courts make a general observation that “the facts - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR and the circumstances” have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. 25. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. In Mahipal this Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 128-29, para 25) “25. Merely recording ‘having perused the record’ and ‘on the facts and circumstances of the case’ does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.” (emphasis supplied) - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR 10. A reading of the order impugned would go to show that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the allegations made against the accused, and on the other hand, by assigning general reasons, a cryptic order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Though granting or refusing bail to an accused is a discretionary order, if it is found that the discretion is exercised without application of mind, then such orders cannot be sustained. 11. The defacto complainant had filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking permission to come on record and oppose the bail application of the accused. Perusal of the order sheet of the learned Sessions Judge would go to show that no orders were passed on the applications filed by the defacto complainant on 20.01.2025, and on the other hand, the learned Sessions Judge had proceeded to dispose of the bail applications by order dated 24.01.2025. Though in the order impugned it is stated that the Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant was also heard, learned Counsel for the defacto complainant has made a submission before the Court that the defacto complainant was not heard in the matter and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR the advocate who had filed the application on behalf of the defacto complainant is ready and willing to file an affidavit to the said effect before this Court. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh's case supra, has observed in paragraphs 22 to 25 as under: "22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of “State” in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a “victim” of the crime. 23. A “victim” within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two distinct - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a “victim”, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an “informant”, and similarly, a “victim” need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. 24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that: 24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged. 24.2. Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses. 25. Adverting to the case at hand, we are constrained to express our disappointment with the manner in which the High Court has failed to acknowledge the right of the victims. It is worth mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present appellants, are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident dated 3-10-2021. The specific stance taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the counsel for the “victim” had got disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make effective submissions before the High Court has not been controverted by the respondents. Thereafter, an application seeking a rehearing on the ground that the “victim” could not participate in the proceedings was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent- accused." 13. Since the defacto complainant has made a submission that he was not given an opportunity of being heard though an application was filed on behalf of the defacto complainant before the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR in Jagjeet Singh's case supra, the defacto complainant has to be given an opportunity of being heard before considering the bail application of the accused. 14. This Court has got supervisory jurisdiction over all the criminal courts of the State, and therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, if it is found that the order granting or refusing bail is cryptic and without application of mind, this Court can always set aside such orders, and therefore, the submission made on behalf of the accused that the defacto complainant is required to assail the order impugned by filing a writ petition, is liable to be rejected. The ratio in the judgments in Dolat Ram's case supra and Prashanth Singh Rajput's case supra, are therefore, not applicable to this case. Under the circumstances, I proceed to pass the following order: 15. Petitions are allowed. The order impugned dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Court of VIII Addl. District & - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:25609 CRL.P No.2427/2025 C/W CRL.P Nos.2290/2025, 2429/2025 HC-KAR Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, to consider the bail applications of accused nos.3 to 10 in Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the defacto complainant. 16. If the accused have any apprehension of being arrested, it is always open for them to file necessary applications seeking interim protection before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, and if any such application is filed on behalf of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same on priority. 17. The parties/their representatives or their learned Counsel shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 19.07.2025 and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos.5009/2025, 5003/2025 & 5004/2025, afresh on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of one week from the date of appearance of the parties/their representatives or their learned Counsel. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK