Criminal Petition No. 8559 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8559 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHAMMA J C/O MANJUNATH SWAMY B AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT. 79 2ND CROSS, MAMATHA SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI JAGADISH M. BALIGA, ADV., FOR SRI CHANDRA MOHAN K, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CCB POLICE SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SMT. ASMA KAOUSER, ADDL. SPP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE PETITIONER TO BE ENLARGED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON HER ARREST OR ON SURRENDER CRIME OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B),406,420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1st ACJM, BANGALORE CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 in Crime No.44/2025 registered by CCB, Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 34 IPC, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.44/2025 was registered by CCB, Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, against the petitioner and her husband for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 28.05.2025 received from Shubhash R.Kiranagi S/o Raju. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.4759/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 16.06.2025. Therefore, she is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that first informant had some financial transactions with the husband of the petitioner and all the money transactions are between the first informant and the husband of the petitioner. Petitioner who is a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR Government servant, is unnecessarily dragged into the dispute between her husband and the first informant. Therefore, petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case in Crime No.45/2025 before the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru, against Lokesh and others. She has also filed a suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking an order of injunction against the accused named in the FIR in Crime No.45/2025. Petitioner is a lady aged about 42 years having no criminal antecedents. She is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, she prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that petitioner is a Group-D employee in Vidhana Soudha and she and her husband have amassed huge wealth by giving false assurance of providing SDA, FDA, Junior Engineer and other posts in State Government. She submits that petitioner and her husband after collecting crores of rupees from various victims, have acquired huge immovable and movable properties from the money illegally collected by them. She submits that statement of all the alleged victims whose - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR name was provided by the first informant has been recorded in the present case and all the said victims have made similar allegations against the petitioner and her husband. Petitioner who is a Government servant has been evading the process of law for the last more than one month. Considering the gravity and nature of offence, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be rejected. 6. In the first information, it is stated that the first informant was introduced to the petitioner herein by his relative Santhosh and the petitioner who allegedly had introduced herself as an Officer in Vidhana Soudha had assured of providing SDA post in Excise Department and had totally collected a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the first informant. The said amount was transferred by first informant to the bank account of respondent no.2 who is the husband of the petitioner, on various dates. However, subsequently the petitioner and her husband started evading the first informant and the first informant came to know that petitioner and her husband had collected money similarly from 25 other persons and out of the said 25 persons, he had given the particulars of 16 victims. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Addl. SPP that the statement of the aforesaid 16 victims has been recorded by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation and all the said 16 victims have made similar allegations against the petitioner and husband. 8. From a reading of the statement of the victims, it is apparent that petitioner and her husband have collected crores of rupees with a false assurance of providing Government jobs to the victims. Learned Addl. SPP has also brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner who is working as a Group-D employee and her husband have amassed huge wealth and they own immovable and movable property disproportionate to their known sources of income. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in addition to owning number of immovable properties, petitioner and husband also own a resort. First informant is not a party to Crime No.45/2025 or to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that though accused no.2 was arrested in the present case, prosecution could not recover the entire amount that was illegally collected/gained by the accused persons. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24193 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2025 HC-KAR 8. Considering the manner in which the crime is committed, it cannot be ruled out that there could be many more victims, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner becomes necessary in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK