Pradeep vs The State Of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, for short), seeking to grant the regular bail by accused No.6/petitioner who is in judicial custody for the offences alleged are under Section 310(2), 61(2), 49, 238 of the BNS 2023.

The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as under:

On 20.01.2026, the defacto complainant lodged complaint alleging that he is permanent resident of Hale-needanegilu village and is residing in the farmhouse along with his family members. The father of first informant had sold areca crop and received a sum of ₹5,00,000/-, kept the amount in his house in the treasury box. On 19.01.2026 at 11:00 a.m., his father had been to Shikaripur at Kadenanandihalli village for attending function in the “Math”. At that time, the first informant and other family members were in the house. On the same day at 10:00 p.m., when all the family members were sleeping in the house, at 11:15 p.m., he heard high decimal sound, at that time, five unknown persons were entered the house by breaking the lock of the back door of the house and they entered the house by wearing monkey cap and hand gloves holding deadly weapons, such as, knife and iron rods. They threatened the complainant and his family members and robbed an amount of ₹5,00,000/- along with valuable gold and silver articles worth ₹3,60,800/- kept in his house. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint.

During the course of investigation, accused No.1 to 3 and 5 were arrested pursuant to their voluntary statement, the name of the petitioner/accused No.6 was disclosed and in turn, on 07.02.2026, this petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. Now the investigation is completed and the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet and the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no prima facie material against this petitioner. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against this petitioner is that he conspired with accused No.1 and transferred a sum of ₹10,000/- to the account of accused No.1. However none of the prosecution witnesses stated the role of this petitioner. He is permanent resident of Muddinkoppa village having permanent records in his locality and he is Police Constable by profession. He will undertake to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court, if this Court admitted the bail.

Learned HCGP vehemently contended that the present petitioner is the main conspirator in the crime, he extended financial aid to accused No.1 in commission of crime and at his instance only, amount has been recovered. Thus, there is prima facie material against petitioner.

Perused the material available on record.

As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 to 3 and 5 entered the house of first informant, robbed a sum of ₹5,00,000/-, gold and silver articles worth ₹3,60,800/-. The Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail in favour of accused No.1, 2 and 7 in Criminal Petition No.102007/2026, 101508/2026 and 101449/2026 respectively.

Hence, learned counsel for petitioner contended that, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

The allegation against accused No.1 and 2 is that they participated in the crime, they entered the house of the complainant, robbed cash, gold and silver articles and this Court granted bail to accused No.1 and 2.

Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that he made criminal conspiracy. The perusal of the entire charge sheet material at this juncture, there is no prima facie material against the petitioner and none of the prosecution witnesses have stated against the petitioner as to the criminal conspiracy made by him with other accused persons. Insofar as the amount transferred by the petitioner/accused No.6 to the account of accused No.1 is concerned, it requires full-fledged trial.

Considering the fact that the other principal accused have already been enlarged on bail, it is well established principle of law that while granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature and circumstances in which the offence is committed, position and status of the petitioner is referred to as the victim and witness, likelihood of plea and term of justice.

Further, the law is well established that while disposing of bail petition, the Court did not scan the projection papers and hold them.

As far as keeping all these factors in mind, when the Court goes to the entire multiple cases on record, it can be said that there are no prima facie material against the petitioner/accused No.6 is concerned. Hence, the Court proceeded to pass the following:

The criminal petition is allowed subject to

the following conditions: