- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100752 OF 2025 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA NINGANURI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA NINGANURI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI BASAGOUDA S/O. DUNDAPPA NINGANURI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. NIDASOSHI-591236, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, FOR SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY ENLARGING THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SC NO. 66/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI ARISING OUT OF SANKESHWAR PS CR.NO. 203/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 498(A), 307, 324, 342, 506 OF IPC, 1860 IN SO FOR AS PETITIONERS ACCUSED NO. 2 T 4 ARE CONCERNED. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.11 14:28:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in the FIR in Crime No.203/2017 of Sankeshwar Police Station, Belagavi District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 324, 342, 506 of IPC. 3. Police after thorough investigation, dropped the present petitioners while filing the charge sheet and charge sheet is now filed only against the husband of the complainant, who is accused No.1. 4. However, the apprehension of the petitioners is that the complainant has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and sought for permission of the Court to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 arraign them as additional accused, in which event, there is possibility of arrest of the petitioners. 5. Therefore, there is real apprehension of arrest made out on behalf of the petitioners which has not been properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting their request for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Further, Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the charge sheet is only against the accused No.1, there may be grant of anticipatory bail for limited period following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and principles therein was reiterated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State Of Maharashtra and others2 and sought for allowing the petition. 7. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent would 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2011) 1 SCC 694 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 contend that in the investigation initially found that there is no case made out against the petitioners and therefore, they were dropped from charge sheet. As such, there is no apprehension of arrest which is a sine qua non for entertaining the anticipatory bail and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. She would further contend that the learned Trial Judge while entertaining the application filed under Section 319 by the complainant to implead the present petitioners as additional accused, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others3 has issued summons to the petitioners. As such, there cannot be any apprehension of arrest and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioners have shown as accused Nos.2 to 4 in the FIR and subsequently Investigating Agency has dropped the present petitioners 3 (2014) 3 SCC 92 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 while filing the charge sheet, prima facie there is no scope for the apprehension expressed by the petitioners. 10. Nevertheless, complainant has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court and summons have been issued and in the interregnum, their apprehension of arrest cannot be ruled out. 11. Accordingly, case is made out for exercising the special power vested in this Court. 12. Hence, the following : ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail, if they are arrested pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge summoning them as proposed additional accused in the pending trial by taking a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4313 CRL.P No. 100752 of 2025 (iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court and participate in the proceedings by filing necessary objections in accordance with law. (iv) Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly. (v) Petitioners shall not in any manner tamper the prosecution evidence. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15