- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18318 CRL.P No. 6959 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6959 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR. ROHAN PINTO S/O. ALEXANDAR RICHARD PINTO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT GADIKOPPALA HOUSE, SORNADU POST, KURIYALA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL TOWN P.S., D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.14/2025, ON THE FILE OF BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, WHICH IS PENDING IN VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU, FOR THE O/P/U/S 108 AND 318(4) OF THE BNS, 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18318 CRL.P No. 6959 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking for regular bail in Crime No.14/2025, registered by the Bantwala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 318(4) of BNS, 2023. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant is an agriculturalist and his son, who is died was assisting him in agricultural activities. His son used to invest in the share market. It is alleged that the petitioner were extorting money from his son since one year. 3. It is further stated that the deceased had approximately paid Rs.60 lakhs as extorted money. Despite receiving the said amount, the petitioner used to continue the harassment. Being frustrated by the harassment of the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide by leaving the death note. Based on the death note information, the complainant lodges a complaint against the petitioners before - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18318 CRL.P No. 6959 of 2025 the respondent –police. The respondent – police after receiving the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.14/2025. 4. Heard Sri Rakesh Kini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Waheeda M M, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner are baseless and bald. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner and the other accused had received an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs as stated in the alleged death note. Moreover, there are no reasons to believe that the petitioner was harassing the deceased and extorting money from him. Mere mentioning in the death note regarding alleged harassment, is not sufficient to invoke the provision as stated in the FIR against the petitioner. Moreover, there is no nexus between the alleged harassment and the death of the deceased. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the death note clearly indicates that the deceased was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18318 CRL.P No. 6959 of 2025 being harassed by the petitioner and others, even after they had received a huge sum of money from him, it is further contended that, as he could not fulfill the demand made by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by leaving a death note. Hence, the learned HCGP prays for the dismissal of the bail petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, even though it is stated in the complaint that his son was being harassed by the petitioner and the other accused in one or the other pretext for the purpose of extorting money, the fact remains that, at this stage for the purpose of considering the bail petition, it is not appropriate to consider the merit of the case. However, prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant bail. 8. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.14/2025 of the respondent – Police, pending on the file of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18318 CRL.P No. 6959 of 2025 VI Add. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru , on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation as and when it is required till filing of the charge sheet. b) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail. c) The petitioner shall not threaten nor tamper the prosecution witnesses. d) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith. In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:SK