- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102563 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102744 OF 2025 IN CRL. P. NO. 102563 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. NITESH SITARAM PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O. WALAKI VILLAGE, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, PIN: 580011 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN SANKESHWAR PS CRIME NO.93/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 316(4), 316(5), 318(3), 344 OF BNS-2023 IN SO FAR AS RESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED, PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANKESHWAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 IN CRL. P. NO. 102744 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BITTU @ RAJEEV KUMAR OMPALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O. BAPPA ROAD, ADARSH COLONY, MUJAFFAR NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH STATE-251001. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADV. FOR SHRI GURUKIRAN A. HANAGANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANKESHWAR P.S. R/BY LEARNED HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA, BENCH AT: DHARWAD, PINCODE-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.93/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 316(4), 316(5), 318(3), 344 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC COURT SANKESHWAR DIST. BELAGAVI, IN THE ENDS OF PROMOTING JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, Sri. Abhilash Hanamannavar, learned counsel for the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 respectively and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. Criminal Petition No.102563/2025 is filed by accused No.1, whereas, Criminal Petition No.102744/2025 is filed by accused No.4 in connection with Crime No.93/2025 of Sankeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(3), 344 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The first informant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others, alleging that he was working as Human Resources (H.R.) Officer at Gold Plus Float Glass Factory, which is engaged in the manufacturing and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 nationwide transportation of glass. For safe and secure transportation of glass, iron racks were used. These racks were installed in trucks at the factory for transporting glass, and after unloading the goods at various destinations, the racks were supposed to be returned to the factory along with the trucks. The truck drivers, upon returning, were required to deposit the empty iron racks back at the factory. The present petitioner – accused No.1 was responsible for monitoring the return of these iron racks and maintaining accountability by recording their return in the factory's inward register. 4. It is contended that, for the past one and a half years, a significant decrease in the number of returned iron racks was observed. When questioned, the petitioner – accused No.1 claimed that he was meticulously monitoring the return of racks and was duly entering every returning stock in the inward register. However, on 16.05.2025, the first informant, along with others, followed a truck driver associated with accused No.4. After returning from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 Chhattisgarh, the driver was seen unloading some empty iron racks near Mangalagad town in Solapur District. This act was recorded on video by a factory employee named Shivaraj Shirahatti, and the footage was shown to the complainant and other factory officials. Following this, the de facto complainant confronted accused No.4, who confessed that accused No.1 had instructed him to sell some of the iron racks at any convenient place while returning from deliveries. He was further directed to report only the remaining iron racks to the petitioner – accused No.1, so they could be shown as returned in the register. He also admitted that the proceeds from the illegal sale of iron racks were distributed among the accused. Based on this disclosure, the factory officials ordered a financial audit through their Chartered Accountant, who reported that approximately 1,400 iron racks were missing, with an estimated value of Rs.5.5 crore (Rs.5,50,00,000/-). Hence, the de facto complainant filed a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR and the initiation of investigation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent, have not committed any offence, and have been falsely implicated in this case. The chain of events narrated in the complaint bears no logical nexus and appears to have been constructed with an ulterior motive to falsely connect the petitioners to the alleged offences. It is further contended that the prosecution's case is entirely based on the alleged voluntary statements of the petitioners and co-accused, which constitute inadmissible evidence and are hit by the bar under Sections 25 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. It is also contended that accused No.1 was appointed as a Nailman in the shipping department on 19.06.2023, and was a newcomer to the company. Despite this, the de facto complainant has falsely implicated him without any substantive basis. Moreover, there is no allegation of entrustment, and therefore, the question of criminal breach of trust or commission of the alleged offence does not arise. The de facto complainant has also failed to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 submit any concrete report or material to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioners. With these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for allowing of the petitions. 7. Learned HCGP contended that the petitioners along with other committed serious offences and caused loss to the company worth Rs.5.5 crore. Now the investigation is pending and heavy amount of money has to be recovered from the petitioners and others. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the bail petitions. 8. Perused the materials available on record. The records reveal that accused No.1 employed as a Nailman, and accused No.4 is the owner of the truck. The report indicates that, on the instructions of accused No.1, the truck driver allegedly sold some of the iron racks and the proceeds amounting to approximately Rs.5,50,00,000/- were misappropriated among themselves. However, the prosecution has failed to produce any material to demonstrate that the petitioners had dominion over the said - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 property. Further, the prosecution has not submitted any audit report, preliminary report, or entrustment order to establish criminal liability. At this stage, the prosecution has also not provided any documentary evidence to show that either accused No.1 or accused No.4 misappropriated the funds and credited the same to their personal accounts. 9. The petitioners are residents of the addresses stated in the cause title. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners have also undertaken to cooperate fully with the investigating agency. 10. Considering the bail petitions, the Court has to consider the nature of offences, circumstances in which offences committed, position and status of the accused, likelihood of they fleeing away from the justice, repeating same offences, tampering with witnesses, character and antecedents of the accused. Keeping all these factors in mind and careful perusal of the entire material on record, this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 Court is of the opinion that, these are fit cases to grant bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petitions are allowed. The petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.93/2025 subject to the following conditions. (i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) Petitioners shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. (iii) Petitioners shall attend the trial Court regularly. (iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission. (v) Petitioners shall not involve in the similar offences. (vi) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the respondent-Police, viz., Investigating Officer / Station House Officer once in every fortnight i.e., on first and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9023 CRL.P No. 102563 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102744 of 2025 fifteenth of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. for a period of six months or till filing of final report, whichever is earlier. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 5