- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11780 CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHARATH BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMESH BHANDARY, R/AT NO.303 BHADARY NILAYA 4TH FLOOR RADHAMMA RESIDENCY GARODI MAJALU UDUPI PERMANENT R/O NO.2-A-3 SANTHEKATTE, GOPALAPURA UDUPI- 576 105. 2. SMT. MAYURI BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O SRI SHARATHA BHANDARY R/AT NO.303 BHANDARY NILAYA 4TH FLOOR RADHAMMA RESIDENCY GARODI MAJALU, UDUPI PERMANENT R/O NO.2-A-3 SANTHEKATTE, GOPALAPURA UDUPI- 576 105. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAVOORU POLICE STATION, MANGALURU REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FRO R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11780 CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.3024/2024 (CRIME NO.148/2023 OF KAVOOR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF JMFC (III COURT), MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 216 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 216 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the accused, Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas, was convicted by the Trial Court and that his conviction was confirmed by this Court on appeal. It is further alleged that the petitioners—accused Nos. 1 and 2—had full knowledge that the accused, Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas, was evading arrest and were harboring him in their house. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 (State) submitted that the petitioners, knowing that Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas had been convicted of the offence, intentionally harbored him to protect him from arrest, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 (State) were heard. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11780 CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025 5. Before addressing the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract Section 216 of the IPC, which reads as follows: Section 216 of the IPC: “Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbors or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the following manner: (i) If the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is a capital offence punishable by death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (ii) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and (iii) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year but not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment, of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one- fourth of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or with fine, or with both. For the purposes of this section, “offence” also includes any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty outside India, which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; every such act or omission shall be deemed to be punishable as if the accused had been guilty of it in India.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11780 CRL.P No. 2135 of 2025 6. It is admitted that Sharan @ Sharan Poojari @ Rohidas was on bail during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The prosecution, however, has not produced any material to substantiate that, upon dismissal of the appeal confirming the judgment of conviction, the petitioners intentionally harbored the accused to evade his arrest by the police. In the absence of any evidence establishing that the confirmation of conviction by this Court, as well as the accused’s subsequent abscondence to evade arrest, occurred with the knowledge of the petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 216 of the IPC. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 3024/2024 arising out of Crime No. 148/2023 at Kavoor Police Station, pending on the file of the learned JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, insofar as they relate to the petitioners—accused Nos. 1 and 2—are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7