- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 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. 102535 OF 2025 (438 OF Cr.PC/482 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: AKASH @ AAKASH S/O. MURALIDHAR MUDALIAYAR @ MODALIYAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. MARUTI NAGAR, KUSUGAL, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAIYAD D. MULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, R/BY. H.C.G.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENCH DHARWAD- 580008. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.482 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 7 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C. NO.3917/2024 ARISING OUT OF ORIGINAL CASE C.C.NO.869/2024 VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD CRIME NO.214/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 343, 364A, 365, 384, 504, 506, R/W. 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 67 AND 67A OF I.T. ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 JUDGE AND CJM COURT DHARWAD, TO MEET THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) 1. Heard Sri.Saiyad D. Mulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Mallipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) / 528 of the Bharatiya nagarika surksha Sanhit, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with the Crime No.214/2023 of Vidyagiri Police Station, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, in C.C.No.3917/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 343, 364A, 365, 384, 504, 506, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC) and Section 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, (for short, ‘the I.T.’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as are under: On 09.11.2023 the accused persons kidnapped the first informant, threatened him to kill if he doesn't give Rs.36,00,000/- related to KIADB. They took him to an isolated area in Hubballi and there accused Kallayya Pujar and Muttu Pujar came and assaulted him with belt like object and tied him up. They kept him in a farm house in Mavinakoppa, they collected Rs.1,50,000/- from the friend of the first informant by name Narayan Shinde of Haliyal. It is alleged that the accused also kept him in a farm house near Yallapur and from there they took him to Hubballi tied his hands and feet and threatened to eliminate him. On the same day, at about 3.00 a.m., they covered his eyes and took him to a guest house on Gadag road, where they kept him and then took him to Annigeri and by using ATM card of his relative, accused withdrew Rs.2,000/-. Thus, the accused persons with an intention to rob Rs.36,00,000/- from the first informant, they formed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 an unlawful assembly, kidnapped him and wrongfully confined him at various places for 3-4 days, assaulted him with belt like object, abused him and threatened to kill him. They led to registration of FIR and investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the alleged offences. The name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. However, based solely on the confessional statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 i. Aluka Sandra Orewa @ Benny Vs. State of Karnataka reported in Crl.P.No.6286/2020 dated 30.11.2020 ii. Sri.Sandeep Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in Crl.P.No.5740/2022 iii. Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State contended that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offences and that seven criminal cases are pending against him. The petitioner is a habitual offender. If released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may commit similar offences and hamper the investigation as well as the trial Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 7. Perused the material available on record, it appears that on 09.11.2023, all the accused persons kidnapped the first informant, threatened him to kill, if he does not give Rs.36,00,000/- related to KIADB. That they - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 took him to an isolated area in Hubballi, where the accused assaulted him with a belt-like object and tied him up. They also collected Rs.1,50,000/- from the friend of the first informant, one Narayan Shinde of Haliyal. Thereafter, the accused persons took the first informant to various places. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint. 8. During the course of the investigation, accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 were arrested by the respondent-police and in turn, they were remanded to the judicial custody. 9. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of respondent-Police, the petitioner/accused No.7 filed this anticipatory bail application. 10. The charge sheet materials, bail petition, and objections filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader clearly indicates that the petitioner/accused No.7 is involved in several other criminal cases, including Crime Nos.39/2020, 51/2020, 52/2020, and 35/2020 of Hubballi - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 APMC Police Station; Crime Nos.26/2024, 45/2020, and 02/2022 of Dharwad Town Police Station; Crime No. 101/2020 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station; Crime No.72/2020 of Kalaghatagi Police Station; and Crime No.10/2019 of Beerur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It clearly shows that several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, indicating that he is a habitual offender. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6286/2020, disposed of on 30.11.2020, and Crl.P.No.5740/2022, disposed of on 01.09.2022. In those cases, the Co-ordinate Bench, considering the fact that the accused was in judicial custody and that the accused in Crl.P.No.6286/2020 was involved in about 60 cases of a similar nature, was pleased to grant bail. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 12. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.” 13. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused was in judicial custody. However, in the present case, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. More particularly, several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, which are not of a similar nature. The petitioner is a habitual offender. If he released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may commit similar offences and hamper the investigation as well as the trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9017 CRL.P No. 102535 of 2025 ORDER The Criminal Petition is rejected. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3