ROHITH PATEL v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The allegation now made in the first information is that, the documents which were produced before the bank for availing the loan are all concocted documents. Loan was borrowed in the year 2023 and the first information is submitted in the year 2026. In…
Judgment
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR M.E.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS ORDERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CR NO.58/2026 OF INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28158 CRL.P No. 4817 of 2026 HC-KAR 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), R/W 3(5) OF BNS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 10TH ADDL.CMM AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused No. 3 in Crime No.58/2026 registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru for offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), R/W 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
FIR in Crime No.58/2026 was registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 23.02.2026 received from the authorized representative of the Union Bank of India, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR had approached Jurisdictional Sessions Court - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28158 CRL.P No. 4817 of 2026 HC-KAR Crl. Misc. No.25217/2026 seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition was dismissed on 09.03.2026. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the vendor of the property which was purchased by accused Nos.1 and 2 with the financial assistance from the complainant - Bank. Since the borrowers have failed to repay the loan, a false complaint is lodged. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to co-operate with the police.
Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and prays to dismiss the petition.
A reading of the first information dated 23.02.2026 submitted by the authorized representative of Union Bank of India, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru reveals that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the said bank seeking financial assistance for the purpose of purchasing the property belonging to the petitioner. The property - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28158 CRL.P No. 4817 of 2026 HC-KAR documents were submitted before the bank by accused Nos. 1 and 2 which were forwarded to the panel advocate of the bank by name Akash B.Rao, who had given his legal opinion on 06.10.2023. Subsequently, a second legal opinion was also obtained from another panel advocate on
10.10.2023 and thereafter the title deeds of the property were deposited before the bank and the valuation report also was obtained from the approved valuer of the bank. Subsequently, the bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.2 Crores 50 lakhs to accused Nos. 1 and 2.
Operative part
The allegation now made in the first information is that, the documents which were produced before the bank for availing the loan are all concocted documents. Loan was borrowed in the year 2023 and the first information is submitted in the year 2026. In the first information it is not stated that how at this point of time, the bank came to know that the documents were forged documents. In the first information itself, it is stated that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the borrowers have not - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28158 CRL.P No. 4817 of 2026 HC-KAR been regularly repaying the loan. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He has undertaken to co-operate with the police for the purpose of investigation. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Under the circumstances, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.58/2026 registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), R/W 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), subject to the following conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28158 CRL.P No. 4817 of 2026 HC-KAR Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
2. Petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
3. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.
4. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 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.
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.