CRL.P/3436/2026 of THAMMEGOWDA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 21 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.161/2025 filed by the respondent 3 Police for the offences punishable under Section 314, 316, 318(4), 317, 316(2), 319 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8BNS9) seeking anticipatory bail. Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2025 at about 10.15 p.m, the complainant Smt. Radhika Santhosh Kumar W/o Santhosh Kumar had lodged a complaint

HC-KAR

stating that she had pledged her gold ornaments weighing 288 grams 7 milligram in Star Gold Company. The said Company was being run by one Sri.Yogesh T., and the petitioner herein who is the father of accused No.1. According to the complainant she had availed a loan of Rs.18,25,500/-. Thereafter, though she repaid the said amount the petitioner herein and the accused No.1 failed to return the gold ornaments which the complainant had pledged. The complainant has learnt that accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated many customers like her. Hence, the complaint.

3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent 3 Police registered a case, conducted investigation and the investigation is under progress.

4. Heard Sri. Mahesha M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in this case. The petitioner did not have knowledge regarding the affairs of the Company. The petitioner is a sleeping partner. In fact, the Trial Court has granted bail to the accused No.1 on the ground that the accused No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.18,25,500/- in any nationalized bank. Therefore, the petitioner is standing on a better footing than accused No.1. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

6. Per Contra, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent

State of Karnataka vehemently submitted that the Star Gold Company is being run by accused Nos.1 and 2 who are none other than son and father, respectively. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.18,25,500/- by pledging the gold ornaments. Thereafter, she has repaid the entire amount

HC-KAR

and asked them to return the gold ornaments. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to deceive her, failed to return the pledged gold ornaments. The petitioner and his son committed similar offences and the matter is pending for consideration. The investigation has to be conducted in respect of the said issue. Hence, at this stage, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Making such submission learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent 3 State of Karnataka prays to reject the petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint and also the order passed by the Trial Court in granting bail to accused No.1. It appears from the record that the petitioner and his son were running Star Gold Company, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.18,25,500/- by pledging her gold ornaments. Thereafter, it is stated that she had repaid the entire amount and asked accused Nos.1 and 2 to return

HC-KAR

the gold ornaments. However, the petitioner failed to return the gold ornaments.

8. Be that as it may, on going through the averments of the complaint and also the findings of the Trial Court in passing the order, it appears that the petitioner is also standing on the same footing as that of accused No.1. However, the amount has already been deposited pursuant to the direction of the trial Court. Hence, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. This Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.161/2025 filed by the respondent 3 Police for the offences

HC-KAR

punishable under Section 314, 316, 318(4), 317, 316(2), 319 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one (01) surety to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Police within a period of one (01) month from date of receiving this order, to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety. iv. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet. v. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses

HC-KAR

nor hamper with the proceedings of the Court. vi. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail. vii. The petitioner shall not commit any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

In case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM