- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13030 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VITHALNAIK S/O LOKESHANAIK AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS COOLIE WORK/LABOURER KATTEHOLA TANDA. HALAGPURA(P) HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI (T) VIJAYANAGARA DIST., - 583 222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN.H.M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME No.329/2024 OF RESPONDENT CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 309(6),310(2) OF BNS ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HON’BLE 2nd ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA AND ETC., Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.2 under Section 483 of BNSS seeking to grant of bail in Crime No.329/2024 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 309(6) and 310(2) of BNS, 2023 pending in S.C.nNo.7/2025 on the file of the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge Chitradurga. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent –State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been granted bail in Criminal Petition Nos.9439/2025, 5408/2025 and 9501/2025 and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 grant of bail on the ground of parity since allegations alleged against him are also same as that of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The stage of the case in the trial Court is for HBC. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With these, he prays to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner – accused No.2. 4. Per contra learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent –State contend that overtacts alleged against this petitioner –accused No.2 are different and severe than the accusations alleged against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 who are granted bail and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in five criminal cases for similar offences. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for 10 years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of threatening - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offence. With these, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused charge sheet and other materials placed on record. 6. It is alleged that on 20.08.2024 during night hours, while complainant had parked lorry bearing No. TN- 52-M-5257 on the left side of NH-48 near Malapur, Chitradurga Taluk, he was approached by accused No.1, who caught hold of his hand, demanded money and threatened him with a knife. Immediately thereafter, petitioner –accused No.2 and accused Nos.3 and 4 along with the Child in Conflict with Law (for short ‘CICL’) arrived on motorcycles. It is alleged that accused No.1 and the CICL, being armed with knives threatened the complainant, while accused Nos.3 and 4 gagged and assaulted him and demanded money. It is further alleged that the petitioner -accused No.2 removed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 complainant’s wallet took Rs.1,100/- cash and discarded the wallet. He also snatched the complainant’s mobile phone and torch, compelled him to unlock the phone, and by coercion transferred a sum of Rs.9,000/- through PhonePe from the complainant’s mobile number to the mobile number of the petitioner -accused No.2. Thereafter, the accused persons threw the phone and torch by the roadside and fled the spot on two motorcycles. 7. Overtacts alleged against the petitioner – accused No.2 is that he removed the complainant’s wallet and robbed the cash of Rs.1,100/- and discarded the wallet and the complainant’s mobile phone and torch, compelled him to unlock the phone, and by coercion transferred a sum of Rs.9,000/- through PhonePe from the complainant’s mobile number. The accusations against accused Nos.1,3 and 4 are that accused No.1 caught hold the hand of the complainant, demanded money and threatened him with knife and accused Nos. 3 and 4 along - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 with this petitioner and CICL threatened the complainant and assaulted him and demanded money. The overtacts alleged against this petitioner –accused No.2 are not similar to that of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who have been granted bail. Overtacts alleged against this petitioner – accused No.2 are different and severe than the accusations alleged against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 who are granted bail and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for 10 years. The petitioner –accused No.2 is involved in four criminal cases in Crime No.24/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(4) of BNS, Crime No.79/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 309(2) and 312 of BNS, Crime No.195/2014 for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS and Crime No.75/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 309(2) and 312 of BNS. Considering the said aspect, the petitioner is habitual offender and if he is granted bail - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41174 CRL.P No. 13030 of 2025 there are chances of threatening prosecution witnesses and he will commit similar offence. Considering above aspects, the petitioner is not entitled for grant bail. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Ct.sm