- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15125 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED HUSSEN KHAN @ KATTA S/O. MEHABUB KHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 757, 2ND CROSS, RAAGIGUDDA, SHANTHINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA -577 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C. NO. 1657/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 66/2021) OF SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 399 AND 402 OF IPC AND SECTION 25, 1B OF ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE JMFC 3RD COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA. Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner who is accused No.1 in Crime No.66/2021. The charge sheet is laid in C.C.No.1657/2024 by the Shivmogga Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act. The same is pending on the file of 3rd JMFC Court at Shivamogga. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner preferred a bail petition in Crl.Misc.835/2025 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he is not involved in any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against him by the complainant. The entire allegation alleged in the complainant is nothing, but concocted, baseless, mischievous and vexatious allegations only with an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 intention to falsely implicate him in the crime. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the crime stage, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc.No.237/2021 vide order dated 05.03.2021 by the learned Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. He further contends that thereafter as the petitioner was suffering from jaundice, he had to rush to his native place for Ayurvedic treatment, hence he remained absent. The JMFC 3rd Court, Shivamogga noticed his absence and ordered to file split up charge sheet and issued NBW and proclamation against the petitioner herein. The respondent/police filed split up charge sheet against the other accused. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is due to ill-health and not intentional but for the bonafide reasons as stated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the other accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have been acquitted after trial. He further contends that the petitioner is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 innocent and seeks to release him on anticipatory bail taking into consideration that he was suffering from ill- health, jaundice and several other reasons as narrated in the petition. It is also further contended that he has got a valid and tenable ground on which he seeks to be released on anticipatory bail. It is also contended that the offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and triable by the learned Magistrate. On these grounds he seeks to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and that petitioner would not abscond further or cause any delay in trial. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent / State contends that, it is no doubt that during the crime stage the petitioner was granted bail, but thereafter, he has not appeared before the trial Court and the matter is committed to the Sessions Court after splitting up of the charge sheet. It is also true that accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have been acquitted, but petitioner has not participated in the trial and has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 deliberately abstained and absconded from appearing before the Court and due to which proclamation has been issued against the petitioner. It is also contended that apart from this case, the following cases are also registered against the petitioner: (i) Crime No.2/2022 (for offence U/S 107 Cr.PC) (ii) Crime No.71/2024 (for offence U/S 107 Cr.PC) (iii) PAR No.13/2025 (for offence U/S 129 of BNSS) 5. Therefore, the learned HCGP submits that once the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender and proclamation having been issued, he cannot be granted pre-arrest anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent / State. 7. The issuance of proclamation against the petitioner is not disputed. The reasons assigned by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail are not very satisfactory for the reason that no materials are placed before the Court to show about his ill-health and absence before the trial Court. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs. State (2012) 8 SCC 730 and in the judgment of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj (2023) 17 SCC 510, it is held that in circumstances where proclamation has been issued, then the rule is the anticipatory bail generally should not be granted unless an exceptional case is made out by the petitioner for such grant of bail. It is also seen that the petitioner in the present case has not challenged the proclamation issued by the Sessions Court. Under the following circumstances, this Court is of the view that the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered for the reason that there is a pendency of proclamation against the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20120 CRL.P No. 15125 of 2025 ORDER This petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court where the matter is pending and seek regular bail upon surrendering. If an application is made by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Court shall consider the matter in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4