Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17835 (KAR)

MR RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/7183/2026 · 2026-05-19

K V Aravind

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7183 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. RAJ KUMAR, S /O ANIRUDH DAS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PERMANENTLY R/AT GRAM KAMALPUR, POST MOHDIPUR, HAJIPUR, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR - 812 006. PRESENTLY R/AT QUARTER No.E-6, GROUND FLOOR, IWST CAMPUS, 18TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINAY KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SADASHIVANAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND PASS AN ORDER GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME No. 2/2026 REGISTERED WITH SADASHIVA NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) OF THE BNS AND SECTION 10(1) OF THE PUBLIC EXAMINATION (PREVENTIONS OF UNFAIR MEANS) 2024, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED 1ST A.C.J.M. COURT, BENGALURU CITY, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6, and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–State. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by accused No.6 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.2/2026 dated 08.01.2026 registered by the Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 Section 10(1) of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint came to be lodged by the Director, Institute of Wood Science and Technology (IWST), Bengaluru, alleging impersonation of candidates who appeared in the examination conducted as part of the recruitment process and the involvement of seven accused persons. It is submitted that the recruitment process in question had been conducted several years prior to the coming into force of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the police are attempting to arrest the petitioner, though custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is contended that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner and that he has a reasonable apprehension of being arrested and harassed by the police. It is further submitted that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 accused No.1 had preferred Criminal Petition No.2491/2026 seeking anticipatory bail and this Court, by order dated 29.04.2026, granted anticipatory bail to accused No.1. Having regard to the identical nature of the offences alleged in the FIR, it is contended that the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–State submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may not cooperate with the investigation and examination, and may also obstruct the course of a fair investigation. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent–State, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations made against accused No.6 are identical to those levelled against accused No.1. This Court, in Criminal Petition No.2491/2026 by order dated 29.04.2026, has already granted anticipatory bail insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 This Court finds no reason to take a different view, nor are any distinguishing circumstances made out warranting a different consideration in the case of the present petitioner. 7. In the light of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner/accused No.6 is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The petitioner/accused No.6 is ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No.2/2026 registered by the respondent-Police for the offences under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 10(1) of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means), 2024, subject to the following conditions; (a) The petitioner/ accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety each - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24798 CRL.P No. 7183 of 2026 for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of this order to execute the personal bond and also to furnish surety. (c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation as and when it is required. (d) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (e) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the Court proceedings. (f) In case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45