SHRI. SHREEKANT S/O. ARVIND KOLEKAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102329 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHREEKANT S/O. ARVIND KOLEKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLI,
RESIDING OF: DUDHEBHAVI,
TALUK: KAVATEMANAKAL,
DISTRICT: SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA - 416 405.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT DHARWAD - 580 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483
OF BNSS (U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN S.C NO.197/2022, (CRIME NO.85/2022 BAILHONGAL
PS) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
PUNISHABLE UNDER 395 AND 120B OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 25(a) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1
U/Sec. 439 of Cr.PC. Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking
regular bail in SC No.197/2022 arising out of Crime No.85/2022
of Bailhongal Police Station, pending on the file of learned IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120B of IPC,
read with Section 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The defacto complainant is the owner of a jewellery
shop. On 08.04.2022, when the defacto complainant and one
Mahadev were travelling from Kolhapur to Kerala via Belagavi,
near Halli Mane Dhaba, Hirebagewadi, an Ertiga car overtook
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
the vehicle in which they were travelling. Two persons got
down from the said vehicle. Seeing them, the complainant
thereafter drove his vehicle for about 5 to 6 km towards M.K.
Hubballi. The Ertiga car again overtook and intercepted the
complainant’s vehicle. Two to three persons alighted from the
car, made criminal intimidation to the defacto complainant and
Mahadev by holding a pistol and a knife, made them alight from
the vehicle, and assaulted them. Further, the defacto
complainant and Mahadev were made to sit in the Ertiga car,
the accused persons allegedly took away the complainants
vehicle and transported both vehicles to a vacant piece of land
and took the money kept in a bag/box and five gunny bags.
After assaulting the de-facto complainant and Mahadev, they
snatched the key of the complainant's vehicle and fled in the
Ertiga car. Hence, the defacto complainant mentioned the
number of the car and, based on this, he lodged the complaint.
During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested
and, in turn, remanded to judicial custody. Hence, this
petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the charge sheet has been filed, and the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since the year 2022. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail in favour of accused
No.2 in Criminal Petition No.101365/2026, disposed of on
15.07.2026. The allegations against accused No.2 and the
present petitioner/accused No.1 are similar. Hence, on the
ground of parity, learned counsel for petitioner prayed to allow
the petition.
5. Per contra , learned HCGP opposed the bail petition
contending that the Investigating Officer recovered a sum of
Rs.53.00 lakhs at the instance of the petitioner and in the
event, the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond
again and may not be available to face the trial. Hence, learned
HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition.
6. Perused the material available on record. Admittedly,
there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The
maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is
10 years imprisonment. The Coordinate Bench granted bail in
favour of accused No.2, from whom Rs.60.00 lakhs was
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
recovered, and the IO recovered a sum of Rs.53.00 lakhs from
the petitioner/accused No. 1. The petitioner is a resident of
State of Maharashtra. In the instant case, the investigation is
completed, the charge sheet has already been filed by the
investigation officer.
7. It is well established principles of law that while
granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the
offence, circumstances in which the offence is committed,
position and status of the petitioner with reference to the victim
and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of
repeating similar offences by the petitioner the possibility, of
tampering with the witnesses, character and antecedents of the
petitioner. Further, the law is well settled that, while disposing
of a bail petition, Court need not scan the prosecution papers
and hold mini trial.
8. Keeping all these factors in mind, when the Court
goes through the entire material placed on record, it can be
said that prima facie there are no reasonable and sufficient
grounds to believe, at this stage, that the petitioner is guilty of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
the offences alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
bail.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1
is enlarged on bail in SC No.197/2022, arising out of Crime
No.85/2022 of Bailhongal Police Station, pending on the file of
learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for
the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120B of IPC,
read with Section 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, subject
to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only)
with three sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial court, out of which, one
surety shall be a resident of the State of
Maharashtra, and the remaining two sureties shall
be residents of the State of Karnataka;
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16993
CRL.P No. 102329 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020162232026
2. The petitioner shall punctually attend the trial
court on each and every hearing date, unless
expressly exempted;
3. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial;
4. The petitioner shall not threaten, induce, or
promise anyone acquainted with the facts, nor
tamper with the evidence or witnesses.
5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the concerned police station without prior
information and intimation, and
6. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
Any violation of the conditions imposed above would
enable the prosecution to set for cancellation of bail.
The observations made in this order are not a reflection
on the merits of the matter, they are only confined to the
disposal of the bail petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16