- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13097 OF 2025 BETWEEN: K.M.SHRIKANTH ALIAS SHRIKANTH HEGDE S/O LATE SRI MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (NOW UNDER JUDICIAL CUSTODY AT P ARAPPANA AGRAHAARA) BENGALURU - 1 (NOTE IN THE ORDER HE HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN AS K N SHRIKANTH) PERMANENT ADDRESSS KERREGADDAE, SARAKULI POST, SIDDAPURA TALUK, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT - 581 355 NO.15/32, 2ND E MAIN ROAD, KALPANA CHOWLA ROAD, BHOOPSANDRA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEDHAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH NO.31, BELLARY MAIN ROAD GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CBI/ACB) BENGALURU …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT BAIL TO ACCUSED NO.3 IN SPL. CC.NO.449/2015 C/W SPL.CC.NO.74/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 47TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BENGALURU, CCH-48 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 467, 468 AND 471 R/W SEC.120-B IPC AND SEC 13(23) R/W SEC 13(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 RELEASE HIM ON BAIL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Sreedhar K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 2. Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer: Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Honourable Court be pleased to allow this petition and grant bail to Accused No. 3 in Spl C.C. No. 449/2015 c/w Spl CC.No.74/2016 pending on the file of 47th additional city civil and sessions judge and special judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru, CCH.48 for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 R/w Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(23) R/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 release him on bail, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Petitioner being the accused No.3 in Special Case No.449/2015 which is tried along with Special Case No.74/2016 on account of the split up charge sheet filed having regard to two different incidents having been reported and present petitioner being accused No.3 is common in both the cases and cases are being tried as they are pertaining to one and the same calendar year. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 3.2 In Special Case No.449/2015, charges leveled against the accused are for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. First accused is also charged under Section 131(c & d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, almost similar are the charges in Special Case No.74/2016. 4. At the outset, Sri. Sreedhar would submit that this is the fourth successive bail application filed by the petitioner and the present petition is filed predominantly on the ground of huge delay of eleven years in disposing of the matter and for few of the offences, he had already undergone the custody even if he is convicted and therefore he can be enlarged on bail. 5. He would also contend that taking note of the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner herein and also taking note of the fact that the other accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 persons have been granted bail, on the ground of parity present petitioner is to be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation would oppose the bail petition by contending that delay is not attributable solely to the prosecution. Records of the case would indicate that petitioner and other accused persons have contributed to the commission of offence and therefore, on the ground of delay petitioner cannot get the relief of grant of bail. 7. Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar would also emphasize that the petitioner is a convict in respect of three such frauds and four more cases are pending including the present cases against the petitioner and he is a known fraudster and even assuming that the bail is granted in the present case he has to join the prison again on account of the order of conviction and thus sought for dismissal of the bail petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 8. Sri. Prasanna Kumar would also emphasize that trial in Special Case No.449/2015 is also, is concluded and few witnesses are to be examined in Special Case No.74/2016 which would be concluded in a time bound manner and this Court may direct the Trial Court to conclude the same at the earliest, we should meet the ends of justice and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having taken note of the fact that accused is already convicted in three cases and he is enjoying the benefit of the provision of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assuming that in the present case, he is convicted. No sentence need to be served by the petitioner for majority of the offences. 10. Further, this Court is not oblivious of the fact that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But delay in conclusion of trial is not solely attributable to the prosecution agency in the case on hand. If the delay is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 solely attributable to parties, then it would enure to the benefit of the accused especially when accused is in custody. 11. But in the case on hand on factual aspects, the above principle cannot be applied though Sri Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically denied that the present petitioner has contributed for the delay in trial. 12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and this petition being the fourth successive bail petition and earlier the bail request of the petitioner is consistently rejected by considered orders by the coordinate bench of this Court, this Court does not find any good grounds to grant bail on merits and so also on the ground of delay. 13. However, taking note of the fact that the trial is pending from the year 2015 and 2016, if a direction is issued to the learned Special Judge to conclude the same at the earliest by taking up the matter on a day to day basis as is directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19554 CRL.P No. 13097 of 2025 of Akil alias Javed vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2013) 7 SCC 125. 14. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Bail petition is dismissed. However, learned Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial as early as possible with the outer limit of 31.07.2026. (ii) Needless to emphasize that the parties shall co- operate for the early disposal of the matter. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6