SHRI N SATISH BABU, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.29683 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI N SATISH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
TH
R/AT 23/A, 6 CROSS,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD,
JAYAMAHALL LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 046.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH CHANDRA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BANGALORE,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO CRL.MISC.NO.7766/2026 FROM THE FILE
OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (P.C. ACT), BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING , THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition takes exception to the order dated 25.08.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. No.7766/2026 arising out of Crime
No.3/2024 insofar as it relates to directing the petitioner to furnish
surety for a sum of Rs.3,62,50,000/- for the purpose of releasing
the subject properties in favour of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
subject properties having been seized by the respondent –
Lokayutha Police, the petitioner filed an application seeking release
of the said properties, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court
vide impugned order dated 25.08.2026, which reads as under:
ORDER
“
The petitioner N.Satish Babu filed the present petition
under Section 503 of BNSS, 2023 and prays to issue
direction to the respondent police to release all the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
documents and cash seized as listed in P.F.No.04/2024,
P.F. No.15/2024 and P.F. No.16/2024.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner is as under;
The respondent police had conducted search and
seizures in the residential house of the petitioner at
Government Allotted Quarter of the petitioner, farm house of
the petitioner, office of the petitioner and another empty site
at Bengaluru. During search and seizer the respondent
police had seized certain documents and cash of Rs.9
Lakhs as listed in P.F. No.4/2024 dated 09.01.2024 from
the residential house of Petitioner at Chitradurga. The
respondent Police confiscated curtained documents from
the farm house of daughter of the petitioner at Chitradurga
and also have confiscated curtained documents frm the
residential quarters of the petitioner at Bengaluru and
submitted P.F. No.4/2024, P.F. No.15/2024 and P.F.
No.16/2024. The sum of Rs.9 Lakhs seized under P.F.
No.4/2024 represents the accumulated savings from the
agricultural income of wife of the petitioner by name
Smt.Sudha who has duly disclosed her agricultural income
before the income tax department. The petitioner had
approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing W.P
No.3107/2024 seeking quashing of FIR registered in the
present Crime Number. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by its order dated 23.04.2026 was allowed the
writ petition and quashed the impugned FIR. The
respondent police preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India with respect to the Order of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
quashing and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11334/2026
dated 13.07.2026. As such prays to allow the petition and
direct the respondent police to take necessary steps to
release all the documents and cash listed in P.F.
No.4/2024, P.F. No.15/2024 and P.F. No.16/2024 with
respect to Cr. No.3/2024 of Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bengaluru Urban Division.
3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor
has filed his objections and contended that the application is
not maintainable either under law or on facts. The
complainant Dy.S.P- 6, Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru
Urban Wing has submitted source report alleging that the
accused being the Government Official accumulated 110%
of extra assets to his known source of income and after
obtaining sanction registered the case under the provisions
of P.C. Act. It is true that the Hon'ble High Court has
quashed the proceedings by its Order dated 01.03.2024 in
W.P. No.3107/2024. The respondent police have preferred
Appeal wide SLP No.014325/2024 before Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
dismissed the SLP. The Hon'ble High Court in its order
dated 23.01.2024 made observation that the 'source report
dated 18.11.2023 is clearly sketchy, defective, incomplete,
inadequate, insufficient and lacking in material particulars
and details of the AGO and his family members are not
considered during the source report'. Hence warranting
conducting of a preliminary enquiry by the respondents in
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
accordance with law. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
wide its order dated 13.07.2026 dismissed the SLP
No.11334/2026, the respondent police has submitted report
for legal opinion to file review petition before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka. The opinion is yet to be obtained,
the documents and the cash seized in the case are material
evidence. As such, prays to dismiss the application.
4. Heard and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The following points arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 503 of Cr.P.C., is
deserves to be allowed?
2.What Order?
6. My answers to the above points are as under;
1. POINT No.1: As affirmative
2. POINT No.2: As per the final order for the
following;
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
7. The learned Advocate for petitioner
contended that the respondent police had conducted search
and seizures in the residential house of the petitioner at
Government Allotted Quarter of the petitioner, farm house of
the petitioner, office of the petitioner and another empty site
at Bengaluru. During search and seizer the respondent
police had seized certain documents and cash of Rs.9
Lakhs as listed in P.F. No.4/2024 dated 09.01.2024 from
the residential house of Petitioner at Chitradurga. The
respondent Police confiscated curtained documents from
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
the farm house of daughter of the petitioner at Chitradurga
and also have confiscated curtained documents from the
residential quarters of the petitioner at Bengaluru and
submitted P.F. No.4/2024, P.F. No.15/2024 and P.F.
No.16/2024. The sum of Rs.9 Lakhs seized under P.F.
No.4/2024 represents the accumulated savings from the
agricultural income of wife of the petitioner by name
Smt.Sudha who has duly disclosed her agricultural income
before the income tax department. The petitioner had
approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing W.P
No.3107/2024 seeking quashing of FIR registered in the
present Crime Number. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by its order dated 23.04.2026 was allowed the
writ petition and quashed the impugned FIR. The
respondent police preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India with respect to the Order of
quashing and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11334/2026
dated 13.07.2026.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
contended that the application is not maintainable either
under law or on facts. The complainant Dy.S.P- 6,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru Urban Wing has
submitted source report alleging that the accused being the
Government Official accumulated 110% of extra assets to
his known source of income and after obtaining sanction
registered the case under the provisions of P.C. Act. It is
true that the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
proceedings by its Order dated 01.03.2024 in W.P.
No.3107/2024. The respondent police have preferred
Appeal wide SLP No.014325/2024 before Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
dismissed the SLP. The Hon'ble High Court in its order
dated 23.01.2024 made observation that the 'source report
dated 18.11.2023 is clearly sketchy, defective, incomplete,
inadequate, insufficient and lacking in material particulars
and details of the AGO and his family members are not
considered during the source report'. Hence warranting
conducting of a preliminary enquiry by the respondents in
accordance with law. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
wide its order dated 13.07.2026 dismissed the SLP
No.11334/2026, the respondent police has submitted report
for legal opinion to file review petition before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka. The opinion is yet to be obtained,
the documents and the cash seized in the case are material
evidence.
9. The learned Advocate for petitioner has also
produced memo along with copy of FIR, copy of complaint,
copies of seizer panchanamas, copy of W.P. No.3107/2024
dated 23.04.2026, copy of order passed in SLP (Criminal
No.11334/2026).
10. It is pertinent to note that admittedly the FIR
registered by the respondent police is quashed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.3107/2024
dated 23.04.2026 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
dismissed the SLP Criminal No.11334/2026 preferred by
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
the respondent police with some observation/direction to
conduct preliminary enquiry and thereafter to proceed in
accordance with law. But as per the contention of learned
Public Prosecutor they have submitted report to obtain legal
opinion to file review petition before the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka. It is significant to note that as of today, the
FIR is already quashed. This court cannot reject the
application of the petitioner in anticipation of preferring
review petition by the respondent police. The apprehension
of learned public prosecutor can be met by imposing some
strict and stringent conditions. Hence, I answer Point No.1
as affirmative.
POINT No.2:
11. In view of my findings on point No.1
as affirmative, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 503 of BNSS., is hereby allowed on
execution of indemnity bond for a sum of
Rs.3,62,50,000/- with surety for like sum
subjected to following;
CONDITIONS
1. The I.O. shall conduct detail panchanama
with respect to the seized documents and
articles in presence of panchas before
releasing the same to the petitioner with
respect to P.F. No.4/2024, P.F. No.15/2024
and P.F. No.16/2024.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while
the petitioner is ready and willing to execute an indemnity bond in
the sum of Rs.3,62,50,000/- before the Trial Court, the petitioner is
not in a position to furnish surety in relation to the aforesaid sum of
Rs.3,62,50,000/- and the said condition may be relaxed by
permitting the petitioner to furnish a surety in the form of
th
immovable property i.e. premises No.228, JCR Extention, 6
Cross, Chitradurga – 577501 standing in petitioner’s wife’s name,
Smt. N. Sudha, and the said condition directing the petitioner to
furnish a surety in the sum of Rs.3,62,50,000/- may be modified
and the present petition may be disposed of.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the
various contentions urged in the statement of objections and
submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is
liable to be dismissed.
6. It is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material
on record that the FIR registered against the petitioner was
quashed by this Court in W.P.No.3107/2024 dated 23.04.2026 and
confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP Criminal No.11334/2026, as a
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
result of which, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the application
filed by the petitioner; however, while the condition imposed upon
the petitioner to execute an indemnity bond in the sum of
Rs.3,62,50,000/- is correct and proper, having regard to the
aforesaid amount being huge/enormous, in the interest of justice, I
deem it just and appropriate to modify the said condition and permit
the petitioner to offer the aforesaid premises as a security towards
release of the subject properties in his favour.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
(i) The petition is hereby .
(ii) The impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.7766/2026 by the Trial Court insofar as it directs
petitioner to furnish a surety in the sum of Rs.3,62,50,000/- is
hereby modified.
(iii) The Trial Court shall release all the documents
and cash seized as listed in PF No.04/2024, PF No.15/2024
and PF No.16/2024 in favour of the petitioner, immediately
upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond in the sum
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58873
WP No. 29683 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653022026
of Rs.3,62,50,000/- and furnishing the surety in the form
security by depositing all the original documents in relation to
th
premises No.228, JCR Extention, 6 Cross, Chitradurga –
577501, standing in petitioner’s wife’s name - Smt. N.Sudha,
before the Trial Court.
(iv) It is made clear that the present order is passed
in the peculiar / unique / special facts and circumstances
obtaining in the instant case and the present order shall not
be treated as a precedent nor shall carry any precedential
value for any purpose whatsoever.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1