SANJEEVREDDY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201385 OF 2026
(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANJEEVREDDY
S/O PARVATHREDDY,
AGE : 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KODAL TQ: SHAHAPUR,
WADEGERA, DIST : YADGIRI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SEDAM POLICE STATION,
POLICE STATION, DIST : KALABURAGI.
ITS REPRESENT BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH,
DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 107.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS
(NEW) U/S 438 OF CR.P.C(OLD), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION THERE BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
POLICE/SEDAM POLICE STATION, DISTRICT KALABURAGI TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
ARREST IN CRIME NO.151/2015 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380 OF
IPC, FILE PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI IN CC NO.55/2019, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/ State on the
petition. Perused the relevant materials on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/
accused No.3 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), praying for
granting anticipatory bail in his favour in the case in CC
No.55/2019 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge
and JMFC at Sedam arising out of Crime No.151/2015
of the respondent Police for the offences punishable
under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code (for
short ‘IPC’).
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
3. The learned Addl. SPP has orally objected to
the petition submitting that the case was registered
against the petitioner and other accused persons as
early as in the year 2015 and the charge sheet was filed
in the year 2018. But since the date of registration of
the case i.e., for more than 11 years, the petitioner has
remained absconding. Now, the petitioner has come up
with this bail petition on the ground that the accused
No.2 has been granted regular bail and the criminal
case registered against the accused No.2 is already
ended in acquittal which cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. The
presence of petitioner is sought to be secured after
issuing Proclamation and Arrest Warrant and hence, the
petitioner is not entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, the learned Addl. SPP has sought for
dismissal of the petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
4. The case alleged against the petitioner and
other accused persons is that they committed theft
between the night of 16.06.2015 and morning of
17.06.2015. The petitioner along with the other three
persons committed theft of 12 LED televisions from the
shop of M/s Prince Electronics, Yashoda Complex, Near
Inspection Bungalow at Sedam belonging to the
complainant and thereafter the complainant gave
complaint to the respondent Police, who registered the
case initially against unknown persons and after
conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the
petitioner along with two other accused persons.
Hence, the petitioner along with other accused persons
committed the alleged offences.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged
offences and he has not committed any of such offence.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
6. The material on record would show that after
investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the
petitioner and other accused persons as early as in the
year 2015. The documents produced by the petitioner
would show that the other accused persons were
arrested at the initial stage and they were remanded to
judicial custody. The petitioner herein was absconding
from the date of alleged offence and hence, the case
against the other accused was numbered as CC
No.613/2015 and the said case ended in acquittal of the
concerned accused persons as per the judgment dated
21.02.2026.
7. However, the case against the petitioner and
others was split up and the separate charge sheet was
filed against this petitioner and other accused persons
and the same was numbered as CC No.55/2019 (earlier
this petitioner was arraigned as the accused No.4 and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
after split up this petitioner was arraigned as the
accused No.3).
8. As pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP, the
learned Sessions Judge while refusing to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner has clearly held that
the alleged offence took place on 17.06.2015 and split
up charge sheet is filed against this petitioner in the
year 2019. In spite of several opportunities, the
petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Hence,
granting of anticipatory bail to protect the personal
liberty in favour of the petitioner does not arise at all at
this stage.
9. The fact that the trial Court has granted
regular bail against the accused No.2 in the case cannot
be a ground of parity to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. As per the papers on record, it is clear that
the accused No.2 voluntarily surrendered before the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
trial Court and he was remanded to the judicial custody
and thereafter, the trial Court granted regular bail as
per the order dated 29.08.2026.
10. But in the present case, the petitioner has
sought for anticipatory bail, that too, after absconding.
Hence, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is
chance of hardship to the respondent Police and thereby
the trial will be hampered.
11. The contention of the petitioner that the case
against the accused No.1 is already disposed of and in
the said case accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence
charged against him may be a ground for the petitioner
to appear before the trial Court and face trial and get
acquitted on the basis of the judgment passed in respect
of the accused No.1 in the case. But, it cannot be a
ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who
has been absconding in the case for the period of about
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11284
CRL.P No. 201385 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030107562026
11 years of registration of the case and for more than 6
years of registration of the split up case against him.
12. Any of the grounds urged by the petitioner in
the case cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail in
his favour. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has
not committed any error in refusing anticipatory bail in
the order. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB,SBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16