- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2026 BETWEEN: JAIPALA @ JAYA S/O SWARNI VELU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PRESENTLY AT MANJUNATHA NAGARA BAGALAGUNTE, BANGALORE CITY - 560 073. PERMANENT AT ODEYAMPATTI VILLAGE VANAMBADI TALUK, VELLORE DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 632 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU T.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. RENUKA PRASAD Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 PSI, POLICE OFFICER AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C. NO. 36/2026 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 388/2022 OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 399 AND 402 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.S.C.-1, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 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 is before the Court calling in question the continuance of the proceedings in SC.No.36/2026 (split case) in crime No.388/2022. The petitioner is accused No.2, who gets embroiled in a crime along with others for offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 ('the IPC' for short) - preparation for commission of dacoity or commission of dacoity, as the case would be. 2. Heard Sri. Basavaraju T.A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. The person who is available for trial i.e., accused No.1 was tried and is acquitted of the offence by the concerned Court on the following reasons: "7. During the course of investigation, the Accused No. 1 to 4 were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and they were remanded to JC., Thereafter, the Accused No.2 and 3 were enlarged on bail, while the Accused No.1 and 4 were in JC., 8. Upon filing of charge sheet, the learned first Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelmangala, committed the Accused No.1 to 4, for trial in CC No.10113/2022. 9. Thereafter, the case was made over initially to the 7th ADJ Court, Bengaluru Rural District. Thereafter, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the case came to be transferred to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 10. During the time of committal, the copies of the charge sheets were furnished to the Accused No. 1 to 4. 11. Thereafter, upon hearing the defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor, the court framed the charges - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 against the Accused No.1 to 4. However, the record reveals that during the pendency of the present case, the Accused No.2 absconded and therefore, the case was proceeded with as against the Accused No. 1, 3 and 4. The Accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In order to prove the charges against the Accused, the Prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as the PW-1 to PW-7, while CW-8 to CW-13 were given up. CW-4 was reported to be dead with this evidence the Prosecution has tried to prove the guilt of the Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 in this case. 13. The incriminating evidence found against the Accused No.1 to 4 was explained to them by recording their statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., They denied the same and chose not to lead their defence evidence. 14. I have heard the arguments of the learned PP and the learned defence counsel and I have perused the materials on record. 15. The following points would arise for my determination:- 1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, On 12.08.2022, in the early morning hours of 03.00 a.m., and 04.30 a.m., within the limits of Madanayakanahalli Police Station near Huskuru Village, near the Huskuru gate on the APMC road, the Accused No. 1 to 4, along with the CCIL were present in the passenger auto brought by the Accused No.2, bearing Reg.No.KA 03-AG-2320 and the Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 and the Accused No.3 and the CCIL were in the Splendor Plus bike of CW-4 bearing Reg.No. KA-04-KH-3547 and another Splendor plus bike having no number plate and they were preparing to commit dacoity from the passersby on the road by showing them, the deadly weapons and thereby they were preparing to commit dacoity and thereby - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 committed the offence punishable under Sec. 399 of the IPC.,? 2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the Accused No.1 to 4, along with the CCIL had assembled with an intention to commit dacoity and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 402 of the IPC.,? 3) What order or sentence? 16. My answers to the above points are as under:- Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative; Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following:- REASONS 17. Point No.1 & 2:- As these points are interconnected, to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, they are taken together for common discussion. 18. PW-1 Renuka Prasad, the then PSI of Madanayakanahlli Police Station is the first informant in this case. It is through him that, the criminal law was set into motion as against the Accused No.1 to 4 and the CCIL in connection with the alleged attempt of dacoity said to have been committed by them on 12.08.2022 at about 03.00 a.m., within the limits of Madanayakanahalli Police Station near the Huskuru Cross on the APMC road of Madanayakanahalli, wherein the Accused No.1 to 4, along with the CCIL were said to have been caught by PW-1 along with his staff, along with the auto rikshaw and two motor bikes, with deadly weapons in their hands, through which they were preparing to commit dacoity. 19. For this purpose, PW-1 has reiterated that, upon receipt of credible information, he, along with his staff went to the spot of the alleged incident at about 04.10 a.m., along with the necessary equipments in the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 departmental jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-43-G-51. According to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who were the panchas accompanied them and the raid was conducted in their presence. 20. It is the evidence of PW-1 that, among the five persons, only three persons could be apprehended, while the remaining two persons absconded from the spot. That the persons who were apprehended by them were the Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3 and the persons who fled from the spot were the Accused No.4 Ganganna and one Babli, Son of Ranga Rao of Achutanagara. 21. Therefore, it is the evidence of PW-1 that, the Accused No.1 to 3 were apprehended, while the Accused No.4 absconded from the scene. It is also the evidence of PW-1 that, at the instance of the Accused persons, they could seize MO.1 to MO.5 from the spot and PW-2 and PW-3 are said to be the witnesses to the said seizure and raid mahazar at Exhibit P1. 22. PW-1 also identified the said raid mahazar as per Exhibit P1 before the court as well as the photograph relating to the same as per Exhibit P3. Through the photograph at Exhibit P2, PW-1 identified that, it was the same auto rikshaw, which was at the spot of the alleged incident and the bikes found in the photographs at Exhibit P3 and P4 were the bikes, along with which the Accused persons were apprehended by them. 23. It is pertinent to note that, PW-1 is subjected to cross examination. However, nothing worth is elicited from him in respect of the same. 24. PW-5 H.Chandra, the then Head Constable of Madanayakanahalli Police Station is said to have accompanied PW- 1 as a member of the raiding team on 12.08.2022. His evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in this case, with regard to he having conducted the raid, having taken the Accused No.1 to 3 to their custody and thereafter, having seized the auto rikshaw, two mobile phones as well as the iron rods as well as the chilly powder packet from the accused persons, who - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 were allegedly taken to custody from the spot of the alleged incident. 25. PW-5 also identified the seizure and the raid mahazar at Exhibit P1 and also his signature on the same. He further identified the Accused No.1, 3 and 4 before the court. It is also the evidence of PW-5 that, as per the instructions of CW-1, on 28.08.2022, CW-9 and he searched for the whereabouts of the Accused No.4 of this case and upon receipt of credible information, they took the Accused No.4 to custody at about 05.00 p.m., in Hesaraghatta and thereafter produced him before CW-3 under the report at Exhibit P10. PW-5 also identified the Accused No.4 through VC. He further identified the auto rikshaw and the two bikes said to have been seized by PW-1 at the time of the raid in the photographs at Exhibit P2 to Exhibit P4. PW-5 has also been subjected to cross- examination on behalf of the defence counsels. 26. PW-6, Dale Gowda, the then PSI of Madanayakanahalli Police Station has registered the FIR on the basis of the report submitted by PW-1 as per Exhibit P5. It is through Exhibit P5 which is the report of PW-1 that, the criminal law came into play. Based upon the same, PW-6 also registered the FIR and forwarded the same to the court and to the higher authorities. PW- 6 also deposed with regard to he having seen the Accused No.1 to 3 along with the report of PW-1 as per Exhibit P5 and the notice issued to the panch witnesses as well as the raid mahazar as per Exhibit P1. 27. Further PW-6 identified the knife as per MO.1, a long as per MO.2, 2 iron rods as per MO.3 and MO.4 and the chilly powder packet as per MO.5. He also identified the auto rikshaw and the motor bikes in the photographs as per Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3. It is the evidence of PW-6 that, thereafter he enquired the Accused No.1 to 3, recorded their voluntary statements, conducted the arrest procedure against them and also recorded the statements of the panch witnesses and the statements of CW-7 to CW-11 in this case. 28. Further, PW-6 has also spoken regarding he having drawn the spot sketch as per Exhibit P12. He - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 identified the Accused No. 1 to 3 to be the persons who were arrested by him. 29. PW-7 Manjunath B.S, the then P. I. of the Madanayakanahalli Police Station has deposed with regard to the release of the two wheeler KA-04-KH-3547 on 16.09.2022 in favour of CW-4 under the vehicle release mahazar as per Exhibit P9. He further deposed that, he has recorded the statement of the RC owner of the auto rikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-03-AG-2320 on 30.09.2022 as per Exhibit P13. He identified the said auto rikshaw in the photographs. On 10.10.2022, he issued the passport to CW-9 so as to trace out the RC owner of the motorbike which contained no number plate. However his staff submitted report to him stating that the RC owner could not be traced out. However, PW-7 identified the motorbike in the photograph at Exhibit P3. 30. It is the evidence of PW-7 that, on 15.10.2022, he laid the charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 to 4 upon completion of investigation. 31. Now, coming to the most important aspect involved in this case i.e., with regard to the proof of raid under the mahazar at Exhibit P1. It is the evidence of PW-2 Sampath Kumar and PW-3 Kumar B that, both of them have signed on the document at Exhibit P1 as per Exhibit P1(b) and Exhibit P1(c) respectively. 32. According to both of them, they have signed on the said document in the Madanayakanahalli Police Station about one and half year back. However, with regard to the contents of the said document as well as the alleged incident in question, both of them are treated hostile by the prosecution. Both of them denied having given statement before the police and also the police having allegedly seized any articles in their presence and they also denied having seen the Accused No.1 to 4 in this case. 33. Therefore the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 which is of utmost relevance in this case, since they being the only independent witnesses in order to prove - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 the case of the prosecution has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution, as both of them have turned entirely hostile. 34. No doubt, this court has the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 to PW-7, who are the police witnesses in this case. However, in the cases of the present nature, the evidence of the independent witnesses play a crucial role. 35. However, as already discussed above, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. In such circumstance, only by relying upon the evidence of the police witnesses, the court cannot come to the conclusion that the charges against the Accused are proved. Though there is no reason for the court to disbelieve the evidence of the police witnesses in this case, unless there is evidence from the side of the independent witnesses, the case cannot entirely stand only upon the evidence of the police witnesses. Therefore the appreciation of the evidence on record goes to show that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, these points deserve to be answered in the Negative. 36. Point No.3:- In view of my findings to Point No.1 and 2 and in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The Accused No.1/Gangadhar, Accused No. 3/Kaushik and Accused No.4/Gangana @ Solle @ Raja are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the IPC., Consequently, by exercising the power-conferred under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C., they are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the IPC., - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 The bail bond of the Accused No.3 and the bond executed by his surety stand hereby canceled. The interim custody of the Splendour Plus motar bike bearing Reg. No. KA-04-KH- 3547 in favour of the claimant Sri. Govindaraju is hereby made absolute. As the Accused No. 1 and 4 are in JC., issue direction to the jail authority to release them from J.C., if their presence in J.C., is not required in any other case. As the Split Up case in SC No.36/2026 against the Accused No.2 Jaipal is pending, the properties shall be retained." If the offence is the one punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and the acquittal is on the reason that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be said that on the same evidence, the petitioner would get convicted. In that light, permitting further trial against this petitioner would be wastage of precious judicial time. 4. 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: - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 “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 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, - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 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.” 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 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 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. 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 - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 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 Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 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. 5. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioners 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 the petitioner, that was not charged against others and to save precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 accepting the subject petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010450732026 NC: 2026:KHC:37446 CRL.P No. 9671 of 2026 (ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.36/2026 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-1 at Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed, qua the petitioner/accused No.2. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15