Bangalore District Court
Chandre Gowda M vs Kamakshipalya Ps on 20 January, 2026
1 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
KABC010001082026
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH 70)
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2026
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A., LL.B(Hon`s), LL.M
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH 70)
Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
Petitioners: 1. Sri Chandre Gowda.M.
s/o Mudigerappa
Aged about 52 years
R/at. No.55, 6th Cross
2nd Main, Srinivasa Nagar
S.G.Kaval, Sunkadakatte
Bengaluru North
Bengaluru-560 091
2. Smt.Sumithramma
W/o N.Chandrashekar Aithal
Aged about 67 years,
R/at. No.103, 4th Cross, MRS Layout
Sunkadakatte
Viswaneedam, Bengaluru North
Bengaluru-560 091
3. Smt.Leela
w/o Mahesh.S.B.
2 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
Aged about 46 years
R/at. No.1292/1107, 2nd Main
3rd Cross, Srinivasanagar
Sunkadakatte
Vishwaneedam Post
Bengaluru North-560 091
(Sri Chandrashekar.P., Advocate for
petitioners)
-V/S-
Respondent : State of Karnataka by
Kamakshipalya Police Station
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, 2023
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the
petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
protection by way of anticipatory bail in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.610/2025 of Kamakshipalya Police
Station, registered for the offences punishable under
3 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
Sections 115(2), 324(4), 303(2), 352, 351(2) read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The gravamen of the accusation, as borne out
from the complaint dated 25.12.2025, is that on
24.12.2025 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused persons
allegedly trespassed into the liquor shop of the
complainant, caused damage to articles, committed theft of
liquor bottles, abused the employees and extended threats.
Significantly, the complainant himself is not an eyewitness
to the alleged occurrence, and the alleged demand of
₹25,00,000/- is attributed only to Accused Nos.3 and 4.
The present petitioners are Accused Nos.1, 2 and 7, who
claim to be residents of the same locality and assert that
they were part of a peaceful protest opposing the opening
of a liquor shop in a residential area.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, with
considerable vehemence, submitted that the entire
substratum of the prosecution case rests on a complaint
which is ex-facie founded on hearsay and surmises, rather
than on direct, cogent or legally admissible evidence. It is
4 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
strenuously contended that the complainant himself is not
an eyewitness to the alleged incident and that the
allegations are predominantly based on what was
purportedly narrated to him by others. It is further urged
that, despite serious allegations of assault and use of
criminal force, the prosecution has conspicuously failed to
place on record any contemporaneous medical documents
or injury certificates to substantiate the claim that the
employees of the complainant sustained injuries. The
absence of medical corroboration, according to the learned
counsel, strikes at the very root of the allegations relating
to hurt and assault, rendering the prosecution version
prima facie doubtful.
4. The learned counsel would further submit that
the dispute in question essentially emanates from a
neighbourhood and locality-related disagreement
concerning the operation of a liquor outlet in a residential
area, and that the criminal law machinery has been
deliberately set in motion to give a criminal colour to what
is, in substance, a civil and civic dispute. It is contended
5 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
that the petitioners are residents of the locality who were
part of a protest opposing the running of a liquor shop in a
residential neighbourhood, and that their opposition has
resulted in their false implication. According to the
petitioners, the invocation of serious penal provisions is
nothing but a pressure tactic adopted to silence dissent
and deter lawful protest, and therefore, the continuation of
coercive steps such as arrest would amount to an abuse of
the process of law.
5. It is also vehemently argued that custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is wholly unwarranted in
the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned
counsel submits that all the material facts are already
within the knowledge of the prosecution, the alleged
incident pertains to a specific date and time, and the
investigation does not necessitate extraction of any
information from the petitioners by subjecting them to
custodial detention. It is contended that arrest, in the
present case, would serve no meaningful investigative
purpose and would instead operate as a punitive measure,
6 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
causing irreparable harm to the personal liberty, dignity
and reputation of the petitioners, particularly when they
have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the
investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the
Court.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
stoutly opposed the petition, contending that the offences
alleged are serious in nature and involve acts of criminal
intimidation, mischief and theft, which have a direct
bearing on public order and safety. It is submitted that the
investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the
custodial presence of the accused is necessary for effective
and fair investigation, including verification of the
allegations, recovery of material objects and confrontation
with witnesses. The learned Prosecutor further contended
that, if the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is
granted at this stage, there is a real and imminent
likelihood of the accused influencing or intimidating
prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence and
7 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
thereby frustrating the course of justice, and on these
grounds, sought for rejection of the petition.
7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the
materials placed on record. The points that arise for my
consideration are that:
1. Whether the petitioners have made
out a case for grant of anticipatory
bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023?
2. What Order?
8. For the reasons stated hereinafter, my findings
on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:- The allegations as borne out
from the complaint dated 25.12.2025, are that on
24.12.2025 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused persons
allegedly trespassed into the liquor shop of the
complainant, caused damage to articles, committed theft of
liquor bottles, abused the employees and extended threats.
Significantly, the complainant himself is not an eyewitness
8 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
to the alleged occurrence, and the alleged demand of
₹25,00,000/- is attributed only to Accused Nos.3 and 4.
The present petitioners are Accused Nos.1, 2 and 7, who
claim to be residents of the same locality and assert that
they were part of a peaceful protest opposing the opening
of a liquor shop in a residential area.
10. On a careful and anxious consideration of the
rival submissions and the material placed on record, this
Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to
be allowed for the reasons, firstly, the complaint itself
discloses that the alleged demand of ransom was made
only by Accused Nos.3 and 4. There is no specific or overt
act attributed to the present petitioners insofar as the
alleged demand of money is concerned. In the absence of
prima facie material indicating a shared common intention,
the invocation of Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita against the petitioners appears, at this stage, to be
tenuous.
11. Secondly, the complainant admittedly is not an
eyewitness to the incident. The allegations of assault are
9 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
not supported by contemporaneous medical records. The
absence of injury certificates at the time of registration of
FIR significantly weakens the prosecution version insofar
as offences relating to hurt are concerned. At the stage of
considering anticipatory bail, the Court is not expected to
conduct a mini trial, yet it cannot shut its eyes to patent
infirmities apparent on the face of the record.
12. Thirdly, the offences alleged against the
petitioners, barring Section 303(2) of BNS, are
predominantly non-cognizable and bailable in nature. The
allegation of theft and mischief appears to have been
introduced to clothe the case with a non-bailable offence,
thereby enabling arrest. Such a stratagem, if prima facie
discernible, warrants judicial intervention to protect
personal liberty.
13. It is trite law that arrest is not to be made in a
routine or mechanical manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab has
authoritatively held that anticipatory bail is a device to
secure individual liberty and should be granted where
10 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
custodial interrogation is not necessary. Similarly, in
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
the Apex Court underscored that arrest should be the last
option and not the first impulse of the investigating agency.
14. Further, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against unnecessary
arrests, particularly in cases where the offences do not
mandate custodial interrogation. The principles laid down
therein apply with greater vigour to the facts of the present
case, where the petitioners are women and elderly
residents of the locality, having deep roots in society and
no criminal antecedents.
15. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution
that the petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper
with evidence is purely speculative and not substantiated
by any tangible material. Such apprehensions can always
be allayed by imposing stringent conditions.
16. Having regard to the totality of circumstances,
the nature of accusations, the absence of direct allegations
against the petitioners, and the settled principles governing
11 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the
considered opinion that denial of protection would amount
to an unwarranted infringement of the petitioners' personal
liberty. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered
in the Affirmative.
17. POINT No.2:- In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER
The Criminal Petition filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is hereby allowed.
It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 in Crime No.610/2025 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, they shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.12 Crl.Misc.No.42/2026
c) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten, induce or influence any prosecution witness.
d) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.
e) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission.
f) Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the SG I, directly on computer, typed by him, same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of January, 2026) Digitally signed by SHIRIN SHIRIN JAVEED JAVEED ANSARI ANSARI Date: 2026.01.22 18:30:20 +0530 (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 70)