- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100835 OF 2025 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASHA @ HUSSAIN BASHA S/O. ABDUL KARIMSAB, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.29, NEAR PAMPAPATHI TEMPLE, HIREJANTHAKALLU, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL 583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. S.P.P.. HCKB AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C. ( U/S. 482 OF BNSS, 2023), SEEKING TO DIRECT THE CONCERNED RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, IN CRIME NO.82/2024 OF HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, DIST. VIJAYA NAGAR, FOR THE OFFENCES U/SECTIONS 120(B) AND 395 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI, IN CC NO.1516/2024, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 12:04:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “To direct the concerned respondent police to release the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.82/2024 of Harapanahalli Police Station, Dist. Vijaya nagar, for the offences under Sections 120(B) and 395 of IPC, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Harapanahalli, in Cc No.1516/2024, in view of the reasons as stated above.” 3. A complaint came to be lodged by Vijay N. Anvekar with Harapanahalli Police Station, vijayanagara District, which was registered in Crime No.82/2024 on 18.05.2024. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 15.05.2024 at about 11.00 p.m., complainant, his relative - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 Sunil Raikar and his friend Mahesh Madivalaru, were proceeding in the car bearing registration No.KA-37/N-6379 belonging to Sunil Raikar. Car had passed through Bennihalli village. At that juncture, they noticed that another car was following their car. Being suspicious about the same, complainant car was stopped near Kottur circle in Harapanahalli town. The car which was following the car of the complainant, passed through the parked car of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant party ignored said car thinking that they may also be the passengers who were playing on the same road. 5. After a while complainant car proceeded towards Davangere via Kanchikere at about 1:40 a.m., on next day, when they were proceeding near the Sub Jail of Harapanahalli, same car which is following them, came from hind side and dashed against car of the complainant on the left side of the car of the complainant. The free moment of the complainant car was intercepted by parking their car and four persons got down from the said car with masks on their face armed with deadly weapons like club, knife and Talwar. They broke open the glasses of the car of the complainant and pulled out Sunil Raikar from the car and assaulted him and snatched his mobile - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 telephone. Two of them got into the Car and they forcibly moved the Car of the complainant and pushed out the complainant from the said Car. Thereafter, all of them escaped along with the car of the complainant. 6. Somehow, complainant party was able to reach the bus stand and came back their native place and after discussing with the elder and friends, they belatedly lodged the complaint on 18.05.2024. It is a specific case of the complainant that accused persons took the bag contained cash of Rs.46,00,000/- and mobile telephone of Mahesh worth Rs.10,000/- and mobile telephone of Sunil Raikar worth Rs.10,000/- and car belonging to Sunil Raikar worth Rs.9,00,000/-. 7. Based on the complaint, police registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and at the first instance and completed the investigation. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 120(B) IPC. The present petitioner is shown as accused No.3. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 8. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail is rejected by the learned trial Judge. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 9. Sri.Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. 10. He would further contend that he was only the driver of the car wherein other accused persons were found and he was not the part of any conspiracy nor he was part of the robbery and therefore, offence alleged against him either under Sections 120(B) and 395 of the IPC is per se not applicable to him and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 11. He would also contend that accused No.5 who has actually snatched the bag has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court and therefore, on the ground of parity, present petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail and sought for allowing the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 12. Per contra Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the bail grounds. 13. She would further contend that very fact that the accused/petitioner has been shown as absconding accused would disentitle the present petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail as he is not a law abiding citizen. 14. It is also the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner is an habitual offender and several other cases are pending against him and therefore he cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 15. Prosecution also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner inasmuch as, petitioner being the driver of the car which followed the car of the complainant for a sufficient distance and later on it is the petitioner who dashed his car to the car of the complainant and parked the car right in front of the car which was in movement and thereby he facilitated the other accused to complete the act of dacoity and therefore, his bail request is rejected. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 16. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal that petitioner was the driver of the car which followed the car of the complainant for a sufficient distance. When the complaint car came to be parked near Kottur circle, in Harapanahalli, the car which was driven by the petitioner passed through the parked car. Later on, they were watching for the movement of the car of the complainant. When the car of the complainant took the road to Davanagere via Kanchikere, the petitioner being the driver of the car wherein other accused are present, dashed his car to the car of the complainant and parked the car rightly in front of the car of the complainant and facilitated the commission of dacoity by the other accused. 17. These factors would prima facie make it clear that petitioner is part of a group of dacoits and therefore argument that is now put forward on behalf of the petitioner that, he was only a driver of the Car and he cannot be proceeded either under section 395 of IPC or under Section 120B of IPC cannot be countenanced in law at least at this stage. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 18. It is the settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at this stage this Court is not entitled to hold the mini trail to find out the merits or demerits of the case. Holding such mini trial even for the purpose of consideration of the bail to a limited extent would definitely hamper the rights of the parties one way or the other. 19. Thus, desisting from holding the mini trial, when the material on record is appreciated, in the light of the appeal grounds and the objections raised on behalf of the prosecution, it is crystal clear that petitioner has also taken active participation in the act alleged against the other accused persons. 20. Next limb of argument seeking the grant of bail by the petitioner is that accused No.5 who actually snatched the bag; snatched amount has been recovered from him has been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore present petitioner is also to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity is concerned, admittedly the present petitioner has been shown as absconding accused. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 21. Incident which occurred in the month of May-2024, the attempt is made in the fag end 2024, before the trial Court seeking anticipatory bail and that too after filing the charge sheet and before this Court later. 22. Taking note of the fact that the trial is not commenced for want of the presence of the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that request of the petitioner cannot be granted on the ground of parity for the simple reason that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen and has been shown as absconding accused. 23. Therefore, viewed from any angle this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to entertain the request of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 24. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5343 CRL.P No. 100835 of 2025 ORDER Bail petition is meritless and is hereby rejected. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC -para Nos.1 to 10 HMB-para 11 to end. CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18