Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 323 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL HAMEED
S/O ZAKARIYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
KAYATADKA HOUSE, MARDALA
ITOOR GRAMA, SUNKADAKATTE POST
PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA KARANATAKA – 575 007.
2. MOHAMMED SADIQ
S/O ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT No.3-646, ADYAR PADAVU
ADYAR POST, MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KARNATAKA-575 007.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MUHAMMAD IRSHAD M H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA RURAL PS
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE- 01.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M R PATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
UNDER SECTION 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO A ENLARGE
PETITIONER No.1 (ACCUSED No.11) ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CR.No.53/2025 OF NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION,
NOW PENDING AS SPL.CC.No.1704/2025 BEFORE THE LD. PRL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-1), FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 111, 61(2)(A) OF
BNS; SECTION 29 OF THE NDPS ACT; AND SEC.3(1)(ii), 3(2),
AND 3(4) OF THE KCOC ACT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners –accused Nos.11
and 12 under Section 483 of BNS praying to grant bail in
Spl.C.C.No.1704/2025 arising out of Crime No.53/2025 of
Nelamangala Rural Police Station pending on the file of
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-1)
registered for offences punishable under Sections 111,
61(2)(A) of BNS, Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as “NDPS Act” for brevity) and 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of
Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as “KCOC Act” for brevity) .
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and
learned HCGP for the respondent –State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend
that the petitioner -accused No.11 is alleged to have been
member of the Garuda gang and alleged to have conspired
with the other accused to kidnap C.W.1. Accused No.11 is
stated to have went with Rahil to the garage of C.W.33
and took the Baleno car left for repair by accused No.10
and in the case of trial, they took the car along with the
garage worker C.W.34. On the way, accused No.11 and his
friend Rahil assaulted the C.W.34 and robbed the said
Baleno car and took away the said car and gave it to
accused No.3. There are no serious allegations against this
petitioner -accused No.12. Accused No.12 is stated to be
brother-in-law of accused No.3, who is stated to have
given him Rs.2,50,000/- and he has transferred the said
amount to different accounts. Accused No.12 is not having
any criminal antecedents. Accused Nos.14 and 15 have
been granted bail. Both petitioners are the cab drivers and
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
they are having children who are dependent on them. He
replied upon the decision of the C-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Petition No.5587/2023 wherein it is held
as under;
11. In Ranjitsing's case supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which was considering the rigor of
similar provisions in paragraphs 36 to 38 and 46,
has observed as under:
"36. Does this statute require that
before a person is released on bail, the
court, albeit prima facie, must come to
the conclusion that he is not guilty of
such offence? Is it necessary for the
court to record such a finding? Would
there be any machinery available to the
court to ascertain that once the accused
is enlarged on bail, he would not
commit any offence whatsoever?
37. Such findings are required to be
recorded only for the purpose of
arriving at an objective finding on the
basis of materials on record only for
grant of bail and for no other purpose.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
38. We are furthermore of the
opinion that the restrictions on the
power of the court to grant bail should
not be pushed too far. If the court,
having regard to the materials brought
on record, is satisfied that in all
probability he may not be ultimately
convicted, an order granting bail may
be passed. The satisfaction of the court
as regards his likelihood of not
committing an offence while on bail
must be construed to mean an offence
under the Act and not any offence
whatsoever be it a minor or major
offence. If such an expansive meaning
is given, even likelihood of commission
of an offence under Section 279 of the
Penal Code, 1860 may debar the court
from releasing the accused on bail. A
statute, it is trite, should not be
interpreted in such a manner as would
lead to absurdity. What would further
be necessary on the part of the court is
to see the culpability of the accused and
his involvement in the commission of an
organised crime either directly or
indirectly. The court at the time of
considering the application for grant of
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
bail shall consider the question from the
angle as to whether he was possessed
of the requisite mens rea. Every little
omission or commission, negligence or
dereliction may not lead to a possibility
of his having culpability in the matter
which is not the sine qua non for
attracting the provisions of MCOCA. A
person in a given situation may not do
that which he ought to have done. The
court may in a situation of this nature
keep in mind the broad principles of law
that some acts of omission and
commission on the part of a public
servant may attract disciplinary
proceedings but may not attract a penal
provision.
46. The duty of the court at this
stage is not to weigh the evidence
meticulously but to arrive at a finding
on the basis of broad probabilities.
However, while dealing with a special
statute like MCOCA having regard to the
provisions contained in sub-section (4)
of Section 21 of the Act, the court may
have to probe into the matter deeper so
as to enable it to arrive at a finding that
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
the materials collected against the
accused during the investigation may
not justify a judgment of conviction.
The findings recorded by the court while
granting or refusing bail undoubtedly
would be tentative in nature, which may
not have any bearing on the merit of
the case and the trial court would, thus,
be free to decide the case on the basis
of evidence adduced at the trial,
without in any manner being prejudiced
thereby."
12. In the case of CHENNA BOYANNA
KRISHNA YADAV VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANOTHER - (2007)1 SCC 242, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 16 has observed as
under:
"16. At this stage, it is neither
necessary nor desirable to weigh the
evidence meticulously to arrive at a
positive finding as to whether or not the
appellant has committed offences under
Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA.
What is to be seen is whether there is a
reasonable ground for believing that the
appellant is not guilty of the two
offences, he has been charged with, and
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
further that he is not likely to commit an
offence under MCOCA while on bail. As
noted above, the circumstance which has
weighed with the High Court to conclude
that the appellant had the knowledge of
the organized crime syndicate of Telgi,
printing fake stamps, etc. and these were
being sold under the protection of the
appellant and hence he had abetted an
organised crime, is the alleged
conversation between him and Telgi in
January 1998, after the kidnapping
incident. In our view, the alleged
conversation may show the appellant's
acquaintance with Telgi but may not per
se be sufficient to prove the appellant's
direct role with the commission of an
organized crime by Telgi, to bring home
an offence of abetment in the
commission of organized crime falling
within the ambit of Section 3(2) of
MCOCA and/or that he had rendered any
help or support in the commission of an
organised crime whether before or after
the commission of such offence by a
member of an organised crime syndicate
or had abstained from taking lawful
measures under MCOCA, thus, falling
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
within the purview of Section 24 of
MCOCA. It is true that when the gravity
of the offence alleged is severe, mere
period of incarceration or the fact that
the trial is not likely to be concluded in
the near future either by itself or
conjointly may not entitle the accused to
be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both
these factors may also be taken into
consideration while deciding the question
of grant of bail."
On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra , learned HCGP for the respondent -
State would contend that the voluntary statement of the
accused No.11 itself indicates that he is having criminal
antecedents involved in three cases including the dealing
in drugs. His statement has been recorded by
Superintendent of Police and it is having presumptive
value. Accused No.12 is the relative of accused No.3, who
has kidnapped C.W.1 and robbed the cash and gave it to
this accused No.12, who has transferred the amount to
different accounts. The charge sheet materials show prima
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
facie case against petitioners for offences alleged against
them. One of the offences alleged is provided with
sentence which may extend to imprisonment for life. With
this, he prayed to reject the petition.
5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on
the record.
6. As per charge sheet, the case of the
prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 15 are members of
the organized crime syndicate by name Team Garuda.
Accused Nos.1 to 11 conspired to kidnap C.W.1. In
furtherance of the said conspiracy on 24.01.2025, the
accused persons kidnapped C.W.1 and took him to
different places and extorted money from him and
demanded further money from C.W.1. Accused persons
total extorted Rs.11,96,000/- from C.W.1 and out of them
Rs.11,83,626/- has been recovered at the instance of
accused persons. There is allegation against accused
No.11, that he is member of Grada gang and he has
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
involved in commission of offences along with accused
Nos.1 and 2. On 23.01.2025, the accused No.1 went to an
open space wherein members of Garada gang were
gathering wherein leaders -accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along
with the others i.e., accused Nos.4, 7, 8 and 10 came
there and altogether consumed drugs. Accused No.1 told
the others to identify the customers for drug peddling and
they also planned to kidnap some businessmen and to rob
cash and ornaments from them. Accused No.1 who was
also present there along with other accused has agreed for
the said conspiracy. Accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.01.2025
have followed C.W.1, who was going towards Nelamangala
in vehicle and they followed him along with others and on
26.01.2025 at about 05.00a.m. they stopped C.W.1,
kidnapped him and robbed money from him and got
transferred amount from his account to different accounts.
The petitioner -accused No.11 on 22.02.2025 at the
instructions of accused No.3 went along with his friend
Rahil to the garage of C.W.33 and took the vehicle given
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
by accused No.10 for trial, along with C.W.34 –garage
worker in the said garage. On the way, this petitioner -
accused No.11 assaulted C.W.34 and took the Baleno car
and gave it to accused No.3. Accused No.11 is involved in
three criminal cases. The provisions of KCOC have been
invoked against the petitioner -accused No.11. The
statement of accused No.11 has been recorded by the
Superintendent of Police, wherein he has admitted his
involvement in the commission of alleged offence and
member of organized crime syndicate. The said voluntary
statement recorded by the Superintendent of Police is
having presumptive value. Considering the said aspects,
there is prima facie case against the petitioner -accused
No.11 for offences alleged against him and therefore he
has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.
7. The allegation against accused No.12 is that he
is relative of accused No.3 and he has received
Rs.2,50,000/- from accused No.3 and transferred them to
different accounts and what remained with him is Rs.550/-
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
and he has spent them. There are no criminal antecedents
of accused No.12. Considering the said aspect, the
petitioner -accused No.12 has made out grounds for grant
of bail with conditions.
8. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The petition is partly allowed. (The bail
petition by petitioner -accused No.11 is
dimissed. The bail petition by petitioner -
accused No.12 is allowed)
ii) The petitioner -accused No.12 is granted bail in
Spl.C.C.No.1704/2025 arising out of Crime No.-
53/2025 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station
pending on the file of Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-1) subject to
following conditions:
a) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall execute
a bail bond for a sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11178
CRL.P No. 323 of 2026
HC-KAR
two sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
b) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not
tamper the prosecution witnesses either
directly or indirectly.
c) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall attend
the trial court on all dates hearing unless
exempted and co-operate for speedy
disposal of the case.
d) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not
involve in commission of any offence. If the
petitioner -accused No.12 is found involved
in commission of any offence, the
prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail granted to him.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48