- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201572 OF 2024 (439(2)(Cr.PC)/483(3)(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HAROONRASHID S/O HUMAYUN MASHYALAKAR, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF THE ADIL-AMANAT CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, R/O. NEAR IBRAHIM ROZA, JORAPUR PETH, TQ.AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAYEED AHMED S/O ABDUL SATTAR INDI, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: BRANCH MANAGER (SUSPENDED), R/O. GREEN PARK, HAMEED NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOL GUMAZ P.S., VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 483 (3) OF BNSS PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN CRL.P.NO.200652/2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C. OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 03.07.2024 in Crl.P No.200652/2024. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the President of the Adil Amanat Credit Co-operative Society. He gave a complaint stating that the respondent No.1 has misappropriated the fund of Rs.4,78,06,213/-. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.1 on 03.07.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of bail. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 3. Heard Sri.Yashas.S.Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 – State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a detailed report regarding misappropriation done by respondent No.1. A huge amount is involved in the said misappropriation. It is the public money. In spite of several allegations leveled against the respondent No.1, this Court granted anticipatory bail. If such anticipatory bail is not cancelled, it would not be possible to conduct detail enquiry to unearth the true facts about the misappropriation. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 after having obtained anticipatory bail threatened the petitioner and others that he would not spare them. Therefore, it is necessary to cancel the bail as he has violated the one of the conditions of which he obtained anticipatory bail. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed a detailed statement of objections and he submitted that the respondent No.1 has not violated any conditions of the bail granted by this Court. The bail can be cancelled only in the case if the respondent No.1 violated any of the conditions. Mere making allegations that the respondent No.1 has threatened the petitioner, that cannot be sufficient to hold that he has violated the conditions. Having said thus, he prays to dismiss the application / petition. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 – State adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and he prays to cancel the bail petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.1 by this Court, this Court had imposed one of the conditions while granting the bail that he should not tamper the prosecution witnesses. However, it appears that, he has not violated any of the conditions. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 9. Having considered the submissions, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P.,1 it lays a guidelines for cancellation of bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.11 held as under. “11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. (emphasis in original) 10. Having considered the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on going through the records, it can be inferred 1 (2024) 4 SCC 222 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645 CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024 that, the respondent No.1 has not violated any conditions. Even assuming that one more FIR has been registered against the respondent No.1 on 26.07.2024, the fact remains that, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. It appears that the second FIR has been filed with an ulterior motive with vengeance. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:PK