CRL.P/105033/2025 of SHRI. PRADEEP ALIAS PADIYAPPA ALIAS PADDU S/O SHIVABASU SUNAGAR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (RAIBAG PS) on 21 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.105033 OF 2025

(439 (CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SHRI. PRADEEP ALIAS PADIYAPPA ALIAS PADDU

S/O SHIVABASU SUNAGAR

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS

R/O: RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR,

TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (RAIBAG PS)

BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,

HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD-580001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, ENLARGE THE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND

CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN RAIBAG PS CR NO.146/2025

S.C NO.5092/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII THE

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI

SITTING AT CHIKKODI FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS

310(2) AND 317(3) OF BNS 2023 AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

ON

15.12.2025,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.146/2025 of respondent - Police is before this Court seeking for regular bail for the offences punishable under Section 310(2), 317(3) of BNS, 2023.

Factual matrix of the case:

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.05.2025

the complainant Shri.Bairu Bandu Khamkar lodges a complaint stating that his pick-up goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-23-B-5842 was hired by M/s. V.K.Traders, Nippani, to deliver pan masala products worth Rs.9,30,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand only) to Javed Traders Raichur.

Accordingly, he along with his driver and another left on 05.05.2025. On reaching Jaganur Cross, Bendawad Village, his vehicle was stopped by 10-12 unknown persons stating that they were Police officials and wanted to check the vehicle as they had received an information regarding Goa liquor stated to be transported in the said vehicle. After thorough check-up, they allowed the complainant and others to go. The complainant and others went from the said place and reached their destination. After reaching the said destination, they opened the door of the truck and found that the goods were

found missing in the said truck. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the said unknown persons.

3.

After registering a complaint, a case came to be filed by the respondent – Police in Crime No.146/2025 against the said unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 310(2), 317(3) of BNS, 2023. After the investigation the respondent – Police submitted the charge-sheet.

4.

Heard Shri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

5.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

submits that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. The petitioners along with others are stated to have committed dacoity of the goods stated to be in the truck. However, no goods were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in this case. No identification parade was conducted to identify the petitioner as to whether he was present or not. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

6.

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent vehemently submitted that, there are serious accusations of dacoity made against the petitioner, the goods worth of Rs.9,30,000/- was recovered.

Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State prays to reject the petition.

7.

Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. However, in the charge-sheet, the overt-act of the petitioner is not mentioned.

Nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

8.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: