1 Reserved on :07.08.2026 Pronounced on :11.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O MR. MARUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT: MAGAVI NILAYA, JAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE, HASSAN – 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN S.P., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELURU POLICE STATION, ARASIKERE SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C, 1973 (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.0098/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 464, 465, 471, 409, 420 AND 120B OF THE IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner, who was Tahsildar of Belur Taluk is before the Court seeking his enlargement on bail for it having been turned down by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6447 of 2026 arising out of Crime No.98 of 2023 registered by Belur Police and pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 3 2. Heard Shri Chethan S.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor- 1 appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The petitioner is a Government servant. He was a member of Bagair Hukum Committee on the strength of him being the Tahsildar of Belur Taluk between August 2021 to July, 2022. Alleging certain illegalities in the grant of lands to ineligible people by the Committee, a private complaint comes to be registered on the score that about 1430 persons were the beneficiaries valued at about 750 crores in the constituency and the petitioner along with others had bartered away the Government land close to 2750 acres. The said private complaint was referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This was challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5030 of 2023 by about 10 accused in the said proceedings. This Court had initially directed not to precipitate the matter way back in the year 2023 and the said order was in subsistence till the matter 4 stood disposed of on 13-09-2024. This Court by a detailed order rejected the petition that the Committee prima facie had acted contrary to law under the Chairmanship of then M.L.A. With the dismissal of the petition, the apprehension of arrest of the petitioner loomed. The petitioner was then taken into custody for the purpose of investigation and now is in judicial custody. The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.6447 of 2026 before the concerned Court. The concerned Court rejects the same. In the light of the said rejection, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri Chethan S.P, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is taken into custody after two years of dismissal of the criminal petition for the purpose of investigation. He was the Member of the Committee, no doubt, but there were several other remedies available in law against the alleged action of the members of the Committee. Notwithstanding the same, the criminal law is set into motion. Setting the criminal law into motion has resulted in arrest 5 of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no warrant of retaining the petitioner in custody, more so, in the light of the fact that all the documents have already been seized. He would submit that in another 2 or 3 days, the petitioner would become entitled to statutory bail itself as obtaining under Section 187 of the BNSS as the charge sheet is yet to be filed. The learned counsel on these grounds seek enlargement of the petitioner on grant of bail. 5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for the State would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that if the petitioner is let off on bail, he would undoubtedly indulge in tampering of documents, influencing the witnesses as he was the Tahsildar and would undoubtedly yield such influence on the witnesses or officers who are holding the documents. In the teeth of grave allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner should not be released on bail. He would further contend that elaborate statement of objections has been filed as to why there has been delay. He submits that the matter is transferred to the CID and the CID has taken up the investigation now owing to the enormity of the crime. Therefore, 6 there has been certain delay in conduct and completion of investigation. That would not mean that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 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 a matter of record. The fulcrum of the lis lies in what is already held by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5030 of 2023. This Court delineates as to how the petitioner and others were brought into the dragnet of crime. After the disposal of the petition on 13-09-2024, it appears examination of about 1200 files were necessary. The State submits that it has drawn up a format and in terms of the said format, the physical verification of the files is taking place. The format is as follows: 7 8 The action of the State cannot be found fault with as this Court had directed investigation into the entire episode on identification of 1200 beneficiaries/files all handled by Bagair Hukum Committee. 8. The issue now would be grant of bail. The petitioner is taken into custody about 40 days ago and remains in custody. But, 9 the issue is, the investigation is in progress and all the documents are admittedly seized and are in the custody of the CID. The custody of the petitioner would not be required for any further interrogation. It is also germane to notice that several of the co- accused had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.13732/2024 and it has been granted to them by the following order: “Heard Sri Aman Nalina Lingesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, for it having been turned down by the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.Nos.8898/2024 and 8899/2024. This Court qua other accused in Crl.P.No.11870/2024 disposed on 28.11.2024 has granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused by rendering the following reasons: “3. This Court has while directing investigation to be conducted into the alleged bartering away of the government land has observed as follows: - “The petitioners at the relevant point in time i.e., between 2016 and 2023 were in the Council, all of them being political entities appointed as Chairman and Members of a particular Committee; the Committee known as Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samithi’ for short). Accused No.1 / 1st petitioner was at the relevant point in time a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Belur constituency. He was the Chairman of the Samithi. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were its members and accused Nos.5 to 10 were the erstwhile members. Accused Nos.11 to 14 are the Tahsildars who were functioning at the relevant point in time at the said place and were Secretaries of the Samithi. The allegation revolves around the functioning of the said Samithi. It is alleged that the Samithi has created records and bartered away 10 Government lands to an extent of 2750 acres to 1430 bogus beneficiaries, which are valued at more than Rs.750/- crores in the constituency of accused No.1, who was the Chairman of the Samithi. Based upon this allegation, the 2nd respondent/complainant seeks to knock at the doors of the jurisdictional Police to register the complaint. No action was taken. He knocks at the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a reference for conduct of investigation into the allegations so made. The complaint is referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., after which a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.98 of 2023 for the afore-quoted offences. This Court by its order dated 16.06.2023 directed that no precipitate action be taken against the petitioners and the same is subsisting even as on date. 3. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The learned senior counsel would seek to contend that the complaint is bald and vague. What are the lands that are granted or what are the documents that are fabricated to grant the lands in favour of fictitious persons is not forthcoming from the complaint. If the complaint is so bald, the learned senior counsel would submit that what investigation the police would do, is ununderstandable. He would submit that all the allegations are untrue and some of the accused being Government servants, no sanction is accorded under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The learned senior counsel would submit that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and the members of the Samithi have acted strictly in consonance with law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant would take this Court through the statement of objections so filed by him and reports of Government servants filed by themselves when enquiry was directed to be held by the Assistant Commissioner into the illegalities. The Assistant Commissioner clearly holds that all the lands granted were bogus based upon fake genealogical tree certificates and granted to fake beneficiaries. The Government land in this manner is illegally donated for personal gains of the members of the Chairman, members of the Samithi and officers. He would contend that the question of sanction would arise 11 only after investigation. The matter should be permitted to be investigated.” xxxxx In view of the preceding analysis, I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie. 12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against them.” Pursuant to the dismissal of the aforesaid petition, in which the present petitioner is the 8th petitioner, files Crl.Misc.No.8899/2024 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the light of the investigation permitted by this Court. This is turned down on the score that this Court has directed investigation as the role of this petitioner is also found. A perusal at the complaint or the finding rendered by this Court while dismissing the aforesaid Crl.P.No.5030/2023 nothing in particular against this petitioner who was a member of the Committee and an advocate of the area is found, prima facie, while several allegations are found against others.” 4. In the light of the petitioners being members of the Committee and the offences not heinous or punishable beyond seven years of imprisonment, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail.” 3. In the light of anticipatory bail being granted to the co-accused, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. b. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.98/2023 of Belur 12 Police Station, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; (ii) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the Trial Court; (iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer. (v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. (vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The Trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order. Ordered accordingly.” In the considered view of the Court, the petitioner should also get the same benefit as ordered supra. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the present petitioner on grant of bail, imposing stringent conditions. 13 8 . For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) Petitioner is granted bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; (b) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the Trial Court; (c) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness(s) in any manner; (d) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer; 14 (e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission; (f) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The Trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order. Registry is directed to communicate this order through electronic mail to the Jail Authorities, to enable them to release the petitioner from prison. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ CT:BR