- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SUJAY S/O LATE KUBER GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBALU KOPAL VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TQ, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2. MADHU H.N S/O NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBALU, KOPAL VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TQ, MYSORE DISTRICT. 3. MANUGOWDA H.D. S/O DEVARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBALU KOPAL VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TQ, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMIKANTH RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R. NAGARA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. RAJU H.D. S/O DAKSHINACHARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING K.R. NAGARA TOWN, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.3, 4, 5 IN C.C.NO.26463/2024 (CR.NO.149/2024) OF THE K.R.NAGAR POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364(A), 365, 368, 201, 506, 504, 109, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in C.C.No.26463/2024. The fulcrum of the lis relates to the accusations against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 including these petitioners of kidnapping for ransom or otherwise. A complaint comes to be registered on 02.05.2024, which becomes a crime in crime No.149/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365, 368, 201, 506, 504, 109, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard V. Lakshmikanth Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against all the accused. Insofar as the present petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 are concerned the allegations are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 "3. ಆೋ 3 ¸ÀÄdAiÀiï ºÉZï.PÉ PÁ®A £ÀA§gï 12 gÀ ನಮೂರುವ ಆೋ 3 ಸುಜ ರವರು ಪಕರಣದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆಯ ಅೕಲ !"#ೕ ಬ%ೆ& '(ದ)ರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ಆೋ 1 ,ೆ-.".ೇವಣ., ಆೋ 8 ಭ0ಾ2 ೇವಣ. ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು ರೂದ) ಒಳ ಸಂ8ನ 9ಾ:;ಾ: ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರ <ೊ=ೆ >ೇ? ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ರವರ Aೆಎ-09-ಎಂC-8254 Dಾರು' ¸ÀÄdÄQ EFG Aಾ?ನ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK ,ೆ5ಾLಳM %ಾಮಂದ Nಾಂಕ 29.04.2024 ರಂದು ಾ' 0ೇೆ ಅಪºÀರಣ Dಾ"Aೊಂಡು ಆೋ 8 ಭ0ಾ2 ೇವಣ ರವರ ಅಣ. ಪAಾ4 ರವರ >ಾ%ಾಮದ ಮNೆ%ೆ ಕೆದುAೊಂಡು ಬಂರು=ಾೆ. ನಂತರ Nಾಂಕ 03.05.2024 ರಂದು ಆೋ 3 ಸುd ಇತೆ ಆೋತಾದ ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು, ಆೋ 5ಮನು%ೌಡ ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 6 Rೕ'S.ಎT.n ರವರ <ೊ=ೆ >ೇ? ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು Nಾಂಕ 02.05.2024 ರಂದು ದಸ:? ಆ:ದ)?ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK ಅಕಮ0ಾ: ಇUGದ) ಆೋ 4 ಾV %ೋWಾX.Aೆ.ಎ ರವರ ಹುಣಸೂರು =ಾಲೂಕು Aಾೇನಹ(Y %ಾಮದ =ೋಟದ ಮNೆ[ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK 5ೇೆ ಕ\ೆ%ೆ ಸ]ಾಂತರ Dಾಡಲು ,ಾಗೂ ಪಕರಣದ ,ಾಯನುK ತ^ಸಲು ಪಯ'Kರುವ ಬ%ೆ& ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ತ2_ೆಯ ಸಂಗರುವ >ಾ`aಗಳ ಆbಾರದ cೕdೆ ಖ8ತಪ"Aೊಂಡು ಆೋ 3 ಸುಜ ರವರ !ರುದf ಕಲಂ 384ಎ, 305, 109, 120(C) gÉ/« 34 ಐ ?ೕ=ಾJ hೋiಾೋಪjೆ Dಾಡdಾ:ರುತhೆ. 4. ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು.,ೆ-.ಎk :- Aಾಲಂ ನಂಬl 12 ರ ನಮೂರುವ ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ರವರು ಪಕರಣದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆಯ ಅೕಲ !"#ೕ ಬ%ೆ& '(ದ)ರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ಆೋ 1 ,ೆ-.".ೇವಣ., ಆೋ 8 ಭ0ಾ2 ೇವಣ. ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು ರೂದ) ಒಳ ಸಂ8ನ 9ಾ:;ಾ: ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರ <ೊ=ೆ >ೇ? ತನK ಬ( Aೆಲಸ Dಾಡು'ದ) >ಾH 27 ಹ?ೕಶ.n.ಎಂ ರವರ Aೆಎ-09- ಎಂC-8254 Dಾರು' ಸುಜುR EnG Aಾ?ನ ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 3 ಸುಜರವೊಂ%ೆ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK ,ೆ5ಾLಳM %ಾಮಂದ Nಾಂಕ 29.04.2024 ರಂದು ಾ' 0ೇೆ ಅಪಹರಣ - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 Dಾ"Aೊಂಡು ಆೋ 8 ಭ0ಾ2 ೇವಣ. ರವರ ಅಣ. ಪAಾ4 ರವರ >ಾ%ಾಮದ ಮNೆ%ೆ ಕೆದುAೊಂಡು ಬಂರು=ಾೆ. ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ ಬ( ಇದ) o5ೈX qೕk ನುK ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು ಕದುAೊಂಡು ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ರವ?%ೆ 2ೕ"ದ)ನುK ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ರವರು ಪ\ೆರು=ಾೆ. ನಂತರ Nಾಂಕ 03.05.2024 ರಂದು ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ಇತೆ ಆೋತಾದ ಆೋ 3 ಸುಜ, ಆೋ 5 ಮನು%ೌಡ ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 6 Rೕ'S.ಎT.U ರವರ <ೊ=ೆ >ೇ? ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು Nಾಂಕ 02.05.2024 ರಂದು ದಸ:? ಆ:ದ)?ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK ಅಕಮ0ಾ: ಇUGದ) ಆೋ 4 ಾV %ೋWಾX.Aೆ.ಎ. ರವರ ಹುಣಸೂರು =ಾಲೂಕು Aಾೇನಹ(Y %ಾಮದ =ೋಟದ ಮNೆ[ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK 5ೇೆ ಕ\ೆ%ೆ ಸ]ಾಂತರ Dಾಡಲು ,ಾಗೂ ಪಕರಣದ ,ಾಯನುK ತ^ಸಲು ಪಯ'Kರುವ ಬ%ೆ& ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ತ2_ೆಯ ಸಂಗರುವ >ಾ`aಗಳ ಆbಾರದ cೕdೆ ಖ8ತಪ"Aೊಂಡು ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು ರವರ !ರುದf ಕಲಂ 364ಎ, 365, 109, 120(C) ೆ/! 34 ಐ ?ೕ=ಾJ hೋiಾೋಪjೆ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 5. ಆೋ 5 ªÀÄ£ÀÄUËqÀ:- Aಾಲಂ ನಂಬl 12 ರ ನಮೂರುವ ಆೋ 5 ಮನು%ೌಡ ರವರು ಪಕರಣದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆಯ ಅೕಲ !"#ೕ ಬ%ೆ& '(ದ)ರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ಆೋ 1 ,ೆ-.".ೇವಣ., ಆೋ 8 ಭ0ಾ2 ೇವಣ. ,ಾಗೂ ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು ರೂದ) ಒಳ ಸಂ8ನ 9ಾ:;ಾ: ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರು ಅಪಹರಣAೆs ಒಳ%ಾ:hಾ)ೆ ಎಂದು '(ದ)ರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ? ಅಪರಹಣದ !tಾರವನುK uೕಸ?%ಾಗೕ ಅಥ0ಾ Aಾನೂನು ಕಮAೈ%ೊಳYಲು ಸಂಬಂದಪಟGವ?%ಾಗೕ Dಾ'ಯನುK 2ೕಡhೇ Nಾಂಕ 03.05.2024 ರಂದು ಆೋ 3 ಸುಜ, ಆೋ 4 ಮಧು, ಆೋ 6 Rೕ'S.ಎT.U ರವರ <ೊ=ೆ >ೇ? ಆೋ 2 ಸ'ೕ4 5ಾಬು ರವರು Nಾಂಕ 02.05.2024 ರಂದು ದಸ:? ಆ:ದ)?ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK ಅಕಮ0ಾ: ಇUGದ) ಆೋ 7 ಾV %ೋWಾX.Aೆ.ಎ ರವರ ಹುಣಸೂರು =ಾಲೂಕು Aಾೇನಹ(Y %ಾಮದ =ೋಟದ ಮNೆ[ಂದ ಸಂತಸ ಮೆ >ೋDಾH @ >ೌಮJ ರವರನುK 5ೇೆ ಕ\ೆ%ೆ ಸ]ಾಂತರ Dಾಡಲು ,ಾಗೂ ಪಕರಣದ ,ಾಯನುK ತ^ಸಲು ಪಯ'Kರುವ ಬ%ೆ& ಈ ಪಕರಣದ ತ2_ೆಯ ಸಂಗರುವ >ಾ`aಗಳ ಆbಾರದ cೕdೆ ಖ8ತಪ"Aೊಂಡು ಆೋ 5 ಮನು%ೌಡ ರವರ !ರುದ) ಕಲಂ 364ಎ, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 365, 109, 120(C) ೆ/! 34 ಐ ?ೕ=ಾJ hೋiಾೋಪjೆ Dಾಡdಾ:ರುತhೆ." On filing of the charge, the petitioners seek discharge from the array of accused before the concerned Court by filing an application under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short). The said application comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.26463/2024 and the order that rejects the discharge. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the charge sheet or the order of the concerned Court would contend that the Court has clearly observed that there are no direct materials to establish any agreement of minds or meeting of minds, as is necessary for an offence under Section 120B of the IPC. The learned counsel would take this Court further to the orders of the concerned Court to contend that the accused Nos.2 to 5 and have communications with relation to abduction, but that would not be enough circumstance for permitting further trial against these petitioners. The petitioners except taking the victim in - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 the car and dropping her to the house of accused No.8, there is no other allegation. He would on these circumstances, submit that permitting further proceedings or trial against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, he would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AJAY MALIK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in AIR Online 2022 Utr 253. 5. Per contra, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned SPP would take this Court through these very documents that are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the order of the concerned Court rejecting discharge does not stop at the observation, as there is no meeting of minds, but it travels beyond that to record the call record details or otherwise. The learned SPP would further submit that the concerned Court has completely ignored the observations made in the charge sheet, which is specific to each of the accused and their specific role in the episode of crime. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The role of each of the petitioners are as narrated hereinabove. The petitioners on the said role and drawing them as accused in C.C.No.26463/2024 seek their discharge from the hands of the concerned Court. The concerned Court by the following order rejects the application for discharge. "20. No doubt, as rightly argued by the defence counsel there are no direct materials to establish any such agreement or meeting of minds among the accused No.3 to 5 and the accused No.2 or the accused No.1 & 8. However, as already stated herein above, from the alleged statements of these accused No.3 & 4 as well as accused No.2 prima-facie it appears that, the accused No.3 & 4 took their car to carry the victim from her village to Saligram as per the request of accused No.2. Further, as stated by accused No.3, he was instructed by the MLA - Sa. Ra. Mahesh to help accused No.2. Thus, it can be inferred that there must be some agreement between these accused No.3 & 4 and the accused No.2 with regard to taking the victim from said Hebbalu Koppalu village to Saligram in the Car belong to accused No.4. As held by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Shivanarayan V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1980 SC 439, 'as the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rare. It is to be proved largely on the inference drawn from illegal act or omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of common design and as such conspiracy may be proved by necessary implications'. Therefore, the conspiracy - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 may be proved by direct evidence or the circumstances which give rise to a conclusive or irresistable inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence as held by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) V/s V.C. Shukla, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1382. Further, it is pertinent to note that apart from the statements of accused No.3 to 6 and the witnesses like CW18, 23, 35 & 140, the investigating officer has also produced the Mobile data extractions along with FSL reports of the Mobile phones of accused No.2 to 6 as well as CW23, wherein the Whatsapp call details & the normal call details along with CDRs were analized and produced. On perusal of those Electronic documents / evidences, prima facie it is revealed that there were whatsapp call and also normal call conversations between the accused No.2 & these accused No.3 & 4 and also between these accused No.3 & 4 and the accused No.5 both prior to alleged abduction of the victim and subsequent to alleged abduction till arrest of accused No.2 by the investigating agency upon registration of crime. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary a prima-facie inference could be drawn that there might be communications among accused No.3 to 5 & accused No.2 in relation to alleged abduction. At this stage, it may not be proper to shift & weigh the evidenciary value of those electronic documents as well as the statements of accused & co- accused before the I.O. 21. Apart from the above, it also appears pertinent to note that, in the statement of CW23 it is was stated that the accused No.3 called CW23 through mobile phone to Kalbetta where they have been secretly hidden, in order to instruct him to arrange for obtaining bail in relation to the case registered about alleged abduction. Further, in the statement of CW23 it was stated that, the accused No.3 to 5 told him that, the abducted lady was with them and she was ready to give statement before the media that she was not kidnapped by anybody, rather she had been to her relative house as per their dictate and as such he should take her to media and do press meet with her. From these statements prima facie inference could be drawn that these accused No.3 to 5 might have been involved in the alleged abduction of the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 victim and as such they have requested CW23 for obtaining bail in the case and also for carrying the victim before the media to give statement against alleged abduction. More so, from the statements of these accused No.3 to 5 as well as the accused No.6 & the witness CW18, prima-facie it is also revealed that after registration of this case and arrest of accused No.2 the accused No.3 & 4 planned to abscond and accordingly they met accused No.5 & 6 and went away from their native along with accused No.5 & 6. More so, as revealed from their own statements, subsequently they had been to said farm house of accused No.7 at Kalenahalli to see the abducted lady. If at all, these accused No.3 to 5 had no knowledge or intention about alleged abduction, how come they know that abducted lady was kept in captivity in the farm house of accused No.7. All these circumstances prima-facie give raise to a sole inference about a kind of agreement among these accused No.3 to 5 and other accused persons involved in the alleged conspiracy. Further, as per Sec. 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 'Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy for the purpose of showing that any such person was party to it'. 22. 22. Therefore, in the present case also as already stated herein above, the conduct of accused No.3 to 5 subsequent to alleged abduction like attempting to abscond, trying to contact CW23 an Advocate for obtaining bail, attempting to visit the place of confinement of the victim at the farm house of accused No.7 and also an attempt to do press meet with the victim with the help of CW23, if duly proved would become relevant facts against each of the accused in this case as per Sec.10 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore at this stage this court cannot decide the authenticity or genuinity or validity statements of these accused as well as the statement of said CW23, which is to be decided in - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 the course of trial for which the accused needs to face the trial. 23. From all the above discussed facts & circumstance coupled with the materials produced along with the charge-sheet, it appears that, there are sufficient materials and grounds to presume the involvement of these accused No. 3 to 5 in the alleged conspiracy & commission of alleged offences. As such, these accused No.3 to 5 are not entitled for their discharge from the said offences at this stage. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER The application filed by accused No.3 to 5 Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C is rejected. For Charge Call on: 28.11.2025." 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is picking three sentences from the said order and wanting to draw conclusion or wanting this Court to draw conclusion that there are no allegations against the petitioners. The charge sheet is clear. The role of each of the accused in the episode of crime, whether they have dropped the victim in their car to house of accused No.8 or otherwise, all of which will have to be trashed out in a full blown trial. 9. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010111952026 NC: 2026:KHC:36716 CRL.P No. 2388 of 2026 would not step into seriously disputed questions of fact, particularly in the teeth of the charge pointing at each of the accused's role. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18