Karnataka High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Karnataka HC Bails Two Men Accused Of Demanding ₹15,000 From Friend, Citing Unexplained Four-Day FIR Delay

ABHISHEK S P @ ABHIv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Bails Two Men Accused Of Demanding ₹15,000 From Friend, Citing Unexplained Four-Day FIR Delay. ABHISHEK S P @ ABHI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 154/2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 351(2) of the BNS.

The court held

The High Court allowed both criminal petitions and directed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 154/2026.

It also directed

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend court unless exempted; refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses and from involvement in similar offences; not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission; and report to the Station House Officer on the first and third Sundays of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., until investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed.

01Facts

The petitions concerned accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 154/2026, registered for offences under Sections 310(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 3

The informant alleged that on 16 August 2026 the accused intercepted him, assaulted him, obtained a transfer of ₹15,000 to accused No. 2 by PhonePe, and criminally intimidated him.

p. 3

The first information was submitted on 20 August 2026, four days after the alleged incident; the Court noted that it contained no proper explanation for the delay.

p. 4

The petitioners were arrested on 22 August 2026, and their bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected.

pp. 3–5

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 154/2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 351(2) of the BNS.

p. 3, 6

ii.2. Whether the circumstances noted by the Court—including the delay in reporting, repayment of part of the transferred sum, and bail granted to other accused—supported granting bail despite the State’s submission that the petitioners had criminal antecedents.

pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

pp. 2–3

The alleged offences were under Sections 310(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 3, 6

The order does not cite or discuss any precedent or set out a broader bail test.

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 310Section 351

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the informant and accused were acquainted, that the first information was filed four days after the alleged incident without a proper explanation for the delay, and that accused No. 2 had repaid ₹13,000 of the ₹15,000 transferred before the FIR was registered.

pp. 4–6

It also noted that accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 had already obtained regular bail.

pp. 4–6

Although the State pointed to the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, the Court allowed the petitions and imposed conditions intended to secure their attendance, prevent interference with witnesses, restrict further similar offending, and require reporting to the police during the investigation.

pp. 4–6

05Holding

The High Court allowed both criminal petitions and directed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 154/2026.

p. 6

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend court unless exempted; refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses and from involvement in similar offences; not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission; and report to the Station House Officer on the first and third Sundays of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., until investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed.

pp. 6–7
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

ABHISHEK S P @ ABHIvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment