- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4725 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH V ALIAS SURESH KOTHI S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NO. 281, 4TH CROSS, K.S. GARDEN, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 026. AND ALSO REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. VIJAY R. S/O RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 C/O KANNAMMA, NEAR SHANI MAHATHMMA TEMPLE, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C. NO. 1439/2011 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 211/2008), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57), BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 IS CONCERNED, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 364-A, 120-B, 506, 342, 324, 323, 384 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No. 8 is now before the Court calling in question continuance of S.C.No.1439/2011 for it having been split from S.C.No.406/2009. 2. Heard Sri. Anand K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.211/2008 along with several other accused, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 364-A, 120B, 506, 342, 324, 384 read with Section 149 of the IPC. At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was not available for trial. Therefore, the concerned Court tries the persons who are available and acquits all of them. Who would remain in the fray is the present petitioner, who is now facing a non-bailable warrant on the score that he has not attended the Court proceedings. The petitioner is alleged of the same offence that is alleged against all others. The concerned Court, in terms of its judgment rendered on 27.08.2011, acquits all those persons who were available for trial. The reason so rendered was that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The reason so rendered reads as follows: "9. POINT NO.1: To substantiate the case as against the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 4, got marked Ex.P1 to 4. As per the prosecution the accused have kidnapped CWs1 and 2 on 11.05.2008 and on the same day at late night released CW-2 only. Again on 14.05.2008 the accused along with CW-1 came to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 house of CW-3 and kidnapped them and detained in the rented house of accused No.12. As the CW-1 agreed to pay the amount through his mother CW-4, again the accused along with CW-1 and 3 came to the house of CW- 4, threatened her and because of the fear of the accused, CW-4 withdrawn the amount of Rs.80,000/- from Corporation Bank and after receiving the said amount, the accused have released them. Among the witnesses examined, the evidence of PW-4 is most important, because according to prosecution he was kidnapped by the accused on 14.05.2008. According to prosecution, the accused have kidnapped PW-4 along with CW-1. CW-4 is the mother of CW-1. CW-4 also one of the victim of this case. PW-4 has stated that CW-1 is his elder brother. So, it is clear that CW-1, CW-4 and PW-4 are belonging to the same family. As PW-4 has tendered his evidence, naturally it is well within the knowledge of CW-1 and CW- 4, but they remained absent to give their evidence. Further, I am to observe that in spite of issuance of N.B.W. on several occasions the prosecution unable to secure them to examine on their behalf. PW-4 in his evidence stated that nobody has kidnapped him. Further, he has stated that he does not know who kidnapped his brother Vijay. He has also stated that he does not identify the vehicle also. He being the victim, turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. According to prosecution, the I.O. has drawn the mahazar, where the accused were wrongfully confined. Said panchanama is marked as Ex.p1. PW-1 to 3 are panchas to Ex.P1. PW-1 in his evidence stated that about 3 years back, he went to Byatarayanapura Police to release his vehicle. At that time the police took his signature. Further, he has stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and also stated that the police have not called him to any place and also the accused were not shown to him. He has also stated that the police have not seized anything in his presence. He turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, PWs-2 and 3 also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Both PWs-2 and 3 have stated that they do not know the contents of said panchanama and also police have not called them to any place to conduct the mahazar. As the material witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and in turn the accused are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 entitled for acquittal. With these observations I answer these points in the negative. 10. POINT NO.2: Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Acting under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 to 14 in S.C.No.406/2009 and accused No.7 in S.C.No.554/2009 are acquitted of the offences punishable Under Sections 341, 364-A, 120- B, 506, 342, 324, 323, 384 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. b) The accused No.2 and 9 in S.C.No.406/2009 and accused No.7 in S.C.No.554/2011 are hereby ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases. c) The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.3, 5, 6 and 11 to 14 shall hereby stand cancelled. d) The entire records and seized property is hereby ordered to be preserved till disposal of the case against accused No.8. e) A copy of the Judgment shall be kept in S.C.No.554/2011." 4. In the normal circumstance, a person who has escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence, but, what today is that judicial time is very precious and permitting trial to continue against this petitioner only for an eventual acquittal, as every other person has been acquitted, it would become a waste of precious judicial time. In that light, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 the BNSS to obliterate the proceedings against petitioner - accused No.8. 5. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows: “12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.” 13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: “As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co- accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them. 15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner- accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co- accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.” The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police. 6. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.1439/2011 (arising out of Crime No.211/2008) pending before the LVI - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22845 CRL.P No. 4725 of 2026 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57), Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36