- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15401 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: AROKIA DASS S/O ARUL DASS. S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO10, HOUSE NO.5, 21ST B CROSS, M. PILLAPPA GARDEN, EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, OPP. SRI RAMA TEMPLE, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047 (CORRECT NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS MENTIONED AT THE LAST PARA OF THE COMPLAINT WRONLY SHOWN AS MADHURANATH IN FIR) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB POLICE BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HARISH GANAPATHY.,HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITONER ON AN ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.69/2025 REGISTERED BY CCB POLICEE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(5),316(2),62,319(2),318(4) OF BNS, 2023 AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CCB POLICE, BENGALURU, TO RELEASE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST ACJM COURT, BENGALURU, THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.69/2025 filed by the respondent - Police for offences punishable under Section 316(2), 62, 319(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS) seeking for anticipatory bail. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint came to be registered by one Sri.Badal Jain S/o Sri. Suresh Jain stating that the accused persons threw a string of misrepresentations, impersonated high-ranking officials, and fabricated suspicious identities and induced the father of the complainant - Mr. Suresh Jain, to part with a sum of Rs.231.34 crores under various pretexts such as procurement of prime real estate properties, clearance of litigation and investment in property - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 development projects across Bengaluru, Goa and other locations. 3. It is further alleged that the present petitioner has been impersonated as an employee of Infosys in the name of Madhuranath and also made the father of the complainant to believe that he is working in said Infosys and also involved in the development of an I.T park, etc., The father of the complainant, after having believed the said facts, advanced a huge amount. However, all the accused, conjointly with an intention to deceive the complainant and his father, took the amount and cheated them. 4. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other accused neither provided the suitable properties nor returned the amount which they received. Hence, the complaint. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 5. Based on the complaint, the respondent, the police, after registering a case, conducted the investigation. The investigation is in progress. 4. Heard Sri. Manjunath M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has granted a stay in the respect of accused No.1. The complainant has made several allegations that he had paid Rs.231.34 crores. However, there is no accountability for the said amount, and also, there are no documents to substantiate the same. 6. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Viveknagar, Bangalore, and he is aged about 50 years old. He will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent vehemently submitted that the modus operandi of the present petitioner and others is very clear. The Petitioner and others in order to deceive the complainant and his father, made them believe that they were the higher-ranking officials, and also they impersonated themselves as some reputed persons working in Infosys and committed fraud, and also they have taken a huge amount of money by assuring that they would arrange the properties for the development in and around Bangalore. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences. Moreover, custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation to unearth the scam that they have committed. Therefore, it is appropriate to reject the bail petition. Making such a submission, the learned High Court - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 Government Pleader for the respondent State prays to reject the petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the complaint and F.I.R. Sri. Suresh Jain is the father of the complainant. He was running a BOB Realty Pvt. Ltd. He got acquainted with one Sri. Syed Faratullah Javeed - the owner of the company, namely GME HVAC Project Services and Cool Nest. He made the father of the complainant believe that he would arrange properties in and around Bangalore and also in Goa for the purpose of developing the land. It appears from the record that the accused No.1 introduced the present petitioner as Madhuranath. However, his real name is Arokia Dass. The petitioner has been impersonated as Madhranatha and acted as if he were working at Infosys, and committed fraud. Moreover, a huge amount is involved in this case. Prima facie, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation to unearth - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16458 CRL.P No. 15401 of 2025 the true facts. Having considered the overt-act and also the other circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant Anticipatory Bail. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. This Criminal Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM