- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2026 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VISHWANTHA K S S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY K, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 16/8-3 2ND MAIN, NEAR BHAVATARNI ASHRAMA MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDARAJA NAGAR POLICE STATION,REPRESENTED BY SPP,HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560082 2. SRI VIJAY R S/O H. RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 996/22/2, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 4TH CROSS, HAMPI NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMAN.B., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (SRI. VIVEKANDANDA.D., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.468/2025 DATED.25.11.2025 BEFORE XXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONENT POLICE GOVINDARAJA NAGAR P.S ALLEGING OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 61, 318, 322 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026 AS DIRECTED, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.468/2025 filed by respondent/police for offences under Sections 61, 318, 322 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, a private complaint has been lodged by the second respondent stating that, during the month of May 2023, the respondent No.2 was in search of dwelling premises for rent. The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the property and agreed to lease out the property. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. As per the averments of the complaint, Rs.20.00 lakhs was advanced. 3. During the subsistence of the lease period, the officials of the State Bank of India, Malleswaram Branch, served and affixed a possession notice on the schedule premises. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 had approached - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 the Bank authority and obtained certain documents relating to the ownership of the schedule property. 4. Thereafter, a private complaint came to be registered by the respondent No.2 and the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police after registering the case, conducted the investigation. 5. Heard Sri Yeshu Baba R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Laxman B., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vivekananda D., learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner had, in fact, transferred the amount to the subsequent purchaser. The amount has to be recovered from the subsequent purchaser. The matter relates to a contractual obligation, which is civil in nature. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Making - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner herein had to pay the lease amount to the respondent No.2 directly. Mere depositing the amount without bringing it to the knowledge of the lessee would not serve any purpose. In fact, the petitioner had intention to deceive the complainant in order to gain wrongfully. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to reject the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the arguments advanced by learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and prays to reject the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13601 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2026 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It would indicate that the present petitioner, with an intention to defraud the lessee, without returning the lease amount, had conveyed the property / obtained the loan from the Bank and the Bank officials are trying to dispossess the respondent No.2. 10. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53