Karnataka High Court
Mayur Ramachandra Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945
CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100751 OF 2026
(438 OF Cr.PC/482 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MAYUR RAMACHANDRA NAYAK
S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O. 2042/1, ARAMANE,
K.C.ROAD, ANKOLA-581314.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE STATION,
Dharwad Bench
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
2. MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAMADAS NAYAK,
AGED: 43 YEARS,
R/O. HICHKAD, ANKOLA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581314.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945
CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. MR. GOPAL KRISHNA NAYAK,
AGED: 46 YEARS,
R/O. ANKOLA,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581314.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J. M., AAG FOR
SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K. L. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING
TO PASS AN ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE
ARREST OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.18 ABOVE NAMED IN
RELATION TO THE CRIME IN CRIME NO.64/2026 REGISTERED
AT ANKOLA POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC,
ANKOLA, FOR OFFENCES THAT ARE MADE PENAL UNDER
SECTIONS 109, 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 61 AND 190 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, HE SHALL FORTHWITH BE
RELEASED ON BAIL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945
CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petition is filed by the accused No.18 (not named in FIR) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) praying to grant anticipatory bail with the following prayer:
"(a) PASS an order to the effect that in the event of the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.18 abovenamed in relation to the crime in Crime No.64/2026 registered at Ankola Police Station, Uttara Kannada pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Ankola, for offences that are made penal under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 61 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he shall forthwith be released on bail on such terms and condition as this Hon'ble court would deem fit and proper in the ends of justice of the;
(b) PASS such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice."
2. Heard Sri.Shivaraj Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Sri.Jayaram Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State, Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Maqboolhamed M. Patil, learned counsel for -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent No.3. Perused the materials made available before this Court at this stage and also considered the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.1/State and also considered intervening applications.
3. It is the brief case of the prosecution as revealed in the complaint and FIR that the victim injured is a State Secretary of Congress Party. It is stated in the complaint by the complainant that on 25.03.2026 at around 09.15 a.m. the first informant and the victim injured have gone to fish market in Ankola in Car bearing registration No.KA-01- MT-5895. After half an hour the victim injured went to a Saloon shop for shaving and the first informant was in the car. About 15 minutes later when the victim injured was coming out from the saloon, in front of the Axis Bank, two unknown persons had suddenly attacked the victim injured with weapons and assaulted on the head with an intention to kill the victim injured. Also in the process of stabbing the chest, the victim injured had escaped and fell on the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR ground. Again the said two unknown persons have stabbed the victim injured and at that moment, the victim injured ran away and escaped, but he was chased by the said two persons and ran away to the house of one Srinivasa Nayak. Later the victim injured ran to the Ankola Syndicate Cooperative Society wherein the said Srinivasa Nayak was present and as soon as the victim injured ran into the Society, the shutters of the said Society was closed to protect the victim injured, but the victim injured has sutained injuries. Therefore, the first informant lodged the complaint by stating that the first informant had seen the said accused clearly and described the colour of clothes worn by the accused and also stated the physical feature of the said unknown persons. Also stated that that there was a Fiat Figo Car nearby, which was brought by the said two unknown persons and thereafter the victim injured had been to Hospital at Ankola and then took treatment and then went to the Manipal Hospital. Therefore, lodged the complaint against 6 - 7 unknown persons with the allegation -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR that they have attempted to murder the victim injured and accordingly, upon receipt of the complaint, the police have registered crime as above stated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the entire initiation of criminal proceedings is targeting the petitioner by falsely making as accused No.18 subsequently though the petitioner did not have any role and was not having connection with the crime alleged, but because of political vendetta a false case is made out against the petitioner/accused No.18. Further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the complaint and FIR and subsequently on the guise of investigation, arresting several persons, trying to rope the petitioner into the alleged crime by taking statement of co-accused stating that they have revealed the name of the accused No.17 and in this way, an attempt is being made against the petitioner on one or other way to rope the petitioner into the alleged crime. Further submitted that the entire case is stage -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR managed just to make false implication of petitioner into the case by purported statement of co-accused. Therefore, submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated into the case.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Philanthropist and is a Chairman of Dwaraka Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Chariman of R.N.Nayak Medical Hospital and President of Himalaya Educational Trust, Ankola. Therefore, the petitioner is having deep roots in the Society, but he is falsely implicating in the case and there are no chances of absconding and fleeing away from the justice. Therefore, prays to grant anticipatory bail.
6. The petitioner has taken several averments in the petition that there was election to the Agricultural Marketing and Production of Cooperative Society and due to political rivalry the entire drama is created just to fix the petitioner into the alleged crime to finish his career in both personal and also in the society. Further submitted that the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR Investigating Officer in his remand application had observed that there is no nexus between the petitioner and the victim injured and opinion of the Investigating Officer is itself against the prosecution.
7. In support of the grounds urged, the learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not present in the place of the incident and is not named in the FIR and complaint. Only on the basis of the uncorroborated confession of the co-accused that is vague in nature, who has stated the name of accused No.17 but not name of the petitioner, but the police without any basis is trying to apprehend the petitioner by filing false case against the petitioner. Further submitted that there is no prima facie material which shows conspiracy, common intention and motive, but the petitioner is possibly implicated in the case and to see that anyhow the petitioner should be arrested to tarnish the image of the petitioner. Therefore, prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by imposing any -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR conditions and petitioner will abide by it and will cooperate for investigation. Therefore prays to grant anticipatory bail.
8. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS1 submitted that the principle of law laid down in this case and as per the guidelines issued therein, are completely applicable in favour of the petitioner to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, prays to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) has filed the statement of objections by raising various grounds and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned AAG in support of the grounds raised has vehemently submitted that this Court has held that the petitioner by misleading the Court that he was seriously fallen ill and is admitted in 1 (2011) 1 SCC 694
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR the hospital, by pleading mercy from the Court has obtained the interim order of bail, but on the very same day of grant of order of interim bail he was discharged form the hospital. This shows the conduct of the petitioner to avoid cooperation for investigation. Further argued that the police arrested accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 at Mathuli Check post and upon enquiry they disclosed the name of accused No.1 and also stated that accused No.1 offered money in lakhs to them and also made arrangements for stay in Ankola in order to commit the alleged offence. Thereafter the police have also arrested accused No.7 in Bagalkot and accused No.8 in Belagavi and upon enquiry they disclosed the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they came into contact with the said accused persons through one Nagaraja Ramachandra Kadukola, who is accused No.9.
10. Further submitted that there are sufficient materials establishing the link between the petitioner, accused No.17 and accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.17
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR transferred the amount to the account of accused Nos.1 and
2. Accused No.17 facilitated to purchase the car and further facilitated to purchase the second hand bike and also to purchase the weapons. Further submitted that after the incident the petitioner/accused No.18 absconded and went to the Maharashtra State along with accused Nos.17 and along with police gunman, who is accused No.16. The petitioner stayed in hotel at Baramati, Maharashtra and even the police went to Baramati to arrest the petitioner, at that time, the petitioner was taken to the local Baramati police station and intimated the same, but at that time the petitioner acted as if falling down on the ground of complaining some illness and he was taken to the hospital and he has taken treatment in the hospital. After obtaining the interim order of bail by this Court, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on the very same day. Therefore, argued that this act of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is a healthy person and he was not having medical history of serious illness. Therefore, submitted that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, submitted considering all these factors the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected bail application and hence, prays to reject the instant petition also.
11. Further the learned AAG argued that if the anticipatory bail is granted then the petitioner may threaten the prosecution witnesses and may also involve in other similar offences. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
12. Further submitted that the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 recorded by the investigating officer wherein the accused Nos.1 and 2 have categorically stated that accused No.17, who is a private gunman to the petitioner, has acted on behalf of the petitioner. The statement of other accused recorded by the judicial officer corroborate with each other. Therefore, there are prima facie material as the petitioner having connection with the alleged crime. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition. Further submitted that the petitioner is master mind
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR involved in the alleged offence and there was previous enmity between the injured victim Gopal Krishna Nayak and the petitioner herein with respect to political matter and election. The bank statement discloses that accused No.16, who is private gunman to the petitioner, transferred the amount to the other accused and also the petitioner arranged the accommodation for the accused persons in Ankola Town only with the intention to commit the murder of the victim injured of Gopal Krishna Nayak. Further submitted that the petitioner along with his two private gunman have rushed to Satara City in Maharashtra State and one of the police gunman was asked to go to the place in Ankola and then the petitioner has switched off the mobile and ran away to the another place with intention to abscond and therefore, the petitioner has not cooperated for the investigation. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
13. The first informant and the injured victim - Gopal Krishna Nayak have filed two separate intervening applications by engaging the service of Advocate and it is stated that these first informant and the victim injured have filed intervening applications before the Sessions Court and they were allowed and the learned Sessions Judge has permitted to address arguments. Therefore, filed applications praying to hear the said two persons. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel - Sri.P.P.Hegde appeared for the impleading and intervening applicants and submitted that the petitioner is politically and financially an influential person and is a master mind behind the scene of commission of alleged crime and therefore, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary. Therefore, prays to reject the bail petition.
14. Further the learned Senior Counsel submitted that during the sequence of events of investigation it is revealed that the petitioner has financed the accused No.17
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR and through whom the petitioner has made to commit the offence alleged. Therefore, custodial interrogation is very much necessary for the purpose of fair investigation. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
15. Further submitted that the petitioner did not have any health problems but just to mislead the Court was admitted in the hospital having showing that he had seriously fallen ill just before the arrest by the police. Therefore, submitted that on the very same day of grant of interim bail the petitioner was released from the hospital, which shows conduct of the petitioner to avoid the cooperation with the investigation. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential considering the seriousness of the offence involved in the case.
16. Learned counsel for the impleading applicants places reliance on the following judgments:
1. (2012) 4 SCC 379 - JAI PRAKASH SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
2. (2014) 2 SCC 171 - STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. PRADEEP SHARMA.
3. (2022) 4 SCC 497 - BRIJMANI DEVI vs.. PAPPU KUMAR AND ANOTHER.
4. CRL.A.NO.1834/2022, 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 870 - ABC vs. ARUN KUMAR C. K. & ANOTHER.
5. CRL.A.NO.938/2022 DATED 12.07.2022 - INDRESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
6. (2023) 8 SCC 181 - PRATIBHA MANCHANDA VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
7. CRL.P.NO.4021/2023 (PARA 11) JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2023 - GOPI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA..
8. CRL.P.NO.15864/2025 - MAHENDRA M. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
17. Upon considering the complaint and FIR prima facie there is no name of the petitioner in the complaint and the FIR. In the complaint the first informant has stated that victim injured is the State Secretary of the Congress Party, which is clearly mentioned in the complaint. The alleged incident as per the complaint and FIR was occurred on 25.03.2026 at broad daylight at around 10.15 a.m. The entire complaint goes to show the involvement of two
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR unknown persons, but at last paragraph it is stated that 6 - 7 unknown persons have attempted to murder the victim injured. Therefore, prima facie there is no material in the complaint and FIR to show the involvement of the petitioner into alleged crime. There is no mentioning of what is the role is played by the petitioner in the complaint and FIR. In this background, and grounds urged by the learned AAG and the learned counsel appearing for the victim injured, the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is worth to extract herein below while considering the anticipatory bail.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS2 case while laying down the principles governing for grant of anticipatory bail at paragraphs 112 was pleased to observe as follows:
2
(2011) 1 SCC 694
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
19. Further in the very same judgment at paragraphs 117, 119 and 122 has held as under:
"117. In case, the State consider the following suggestions in proper perspective then perhaps it may not be necessary to curtail the personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner. These suggestions are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
1) Direct the accused to join investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested.
2) Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of properties or the Fixed Deposit Receipts/Share Certificates of the accused.
3) Direct the accused to execute bonds;
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
4) The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case.
5) The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided.
6) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration during investigation."
"119. Exercise of jurisdiction under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is extremely important judicial function of a judge and must be entrusted to judicial officers with some experience and good track record. Both individual and society have vital interest in orders passed by the courts in anticipatory bail applications."
"122. In our considered view, the Constitution Bench in Sibbia case3 (supra) has comprehensively dealt with almost all aspects of the concept of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. A number of judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties consisting of Benches of smaller strength where the courts have observed that the anticipatory bail should be of limited duration only and ordinarily on expiry of that duration or standard duration, the court granting the anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter. This view is clearly contrary to the view taken by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia case. In the preceding paragraphs, it is clearly spelt out that no limitation has been envisaged by the Legislature under section 438 Cr.P.C. The Constitution Bench has aptly observed that "we see no valid reason for rewriting section 438 with a view, not to expanding 3 Gurubaksh Singh Sabbia V. State of Panjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court or the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it".
20. Further learned counsel for the impleading applicants has also relied on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAI PRAKASH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 has held as under:
"13. There is no substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. so far as appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
14. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia5 this Court considered the nature of the right of anticipatory bail and observed as under: (SCC p. 226, para 7) "7. ... We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to 4 (2012) 4 SCC 379 5 [(1995) 3 SCC 221 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 439 : AIR 1995 SC 1198]
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. ... Also anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21."
15. While deciding the aforesaid cases, this Court referred to the 41st Report of the Indian Law Commission dated 24-9-1969 recommending the introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail wherein it has been observed that "power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases".
16. Ms Kavita Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has vehemently advanced the arguments on the concept of life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India placing a very heavy reliance on the observations made by this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of 6 Maharashtra and submitted that unless the custodial interrogation is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, not granting anticipatory bail amounts to denial of the rights conferred upon a citizen/person under Article 21 of the Constitution.
19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K.Ganesh Babu v. P.T.Manokaran7, State of 6 [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514 : AIR 2011 SC 312] 7 [(2007) 4 SCC 434 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345]
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain8 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal9."
21. Further in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PRADEEP SHARMA10 Their Lordships are pleased to observe at paragraph 15 as below:
"15. In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.11 this Court considered the scope of Section 438 of the Code as under: (SCC pp. 311-12, para 16) "16. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to plead innocence, since he is not on the date of application for exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. The applicant must show that he has 'reason to believe' that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression 'reason to believe' shows that the belief that the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief' for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested. Grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested in non-bailable offence must be capable of being examined. If an 8 [(2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] 9 [(2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] 10 (2014) 2 SC 171 11 [(2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933]
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR application is made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it is for the court concerned to decide whether a case has been made out for granting of the relief sought. The provisions cannot be invoked after arrest of the accused. A blanket order should not be generally passed. It flows from the very language of the section which requires the applicant to show that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. Normally a direction should not issue to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail 'whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever'. Such 'blanket order' should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 is a device to secure the individual's liberty, it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely. On the facts of the case, considered in the background of the legal position set out above, this does not prima facie appear to be a case where any order in terms of Section 438 of the Code can be passed."
22. Further in the case of BRIJMANI DEVI v. PAPPU KUMAR AND ANOTHER the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.19, 22, 23, 24 has held as under:
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR "19. Having regard to the contention of Shri Smarhar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders12 13, granting bail to the respondent-accused are bereft of any reasoning and they are cryptic and bail has been granted in a casual manner, we extract those portions of the impugned orders dated 22-7-2021 and 13-9-2021 passed by the High Court, which provides the "reasoning" of the Court for granting bail, as under:
19.1. Impugned order dated 22-7-2021:
[Pappu Kumar case, SCC OnLine Pat paras 5-6)
5. ... During course of investigation, it has come that at the time and date of occurrence petitioner was at Araria. The petitioner is in custody since 30-9-2020.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that false implication against the petitioner cannot be ruled out, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna in connection with Naubatpur PS Case No. 93 of 2020, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-
operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and in the 12 [Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856] 13 [Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857]
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.
(ii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner." 19.2. Impugned order dated 13-9-202114 (Pappu Singh case, SCC OnLine Pat para 7) "7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact petitioner is in custody since 6-1-2021, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Judge VIII, Patna, in connection with Parza Bazar PS Case No.316 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail."
14 [Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857]
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
22. Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi)15 is a case wherein this Court proceeded to state the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail:
"4. ... (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." (Ram Govind Upadhyay case16, SCC p.602, para 4)
23. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, speaking through Banerjee, J., observed as under: (SCC p. 602, para 3) "3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a 15 (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] 16 [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688]
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter."
24. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan17, this Court observed in para 11 as under: (SCC pp. 535-
36) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
17 (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh18, and Puran v. Rambilas19)."
23. Further in Crl.A.No.1834/2022 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7188/2022)20 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant 18 (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] 19 (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] 20 2022LiveLaw (SC) 870
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
24. Further in the case of INDRESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR21. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held under:
"The High Court has ignored the materials on record including incriminating statements of witnesses under Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence."
25. Further in the case of PRATIBHA MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 21 Criminal Appeal No.938 of 2022
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR ANOTHER22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21 and 32 has held as follows:
"18. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.
19. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra23, this Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab24, case. After a thorough deliberation, this Court arrived at the following conclusion : (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre case, SCC p. 736, para 112) "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;22
(2023) 8 SCC 181 23 [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] 24 (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465]
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people."
20. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)25, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.
32. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already sub judice before the civil court in the civil suits pending between the parties. The 25 (2018) 7 SCC 731 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 331]
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent 2 and his co- accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only Respondent 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. We are, as mentioned, also sceptical, suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion."
26. Further learned counsel for the impleading applicants places reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of GOPI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA26.
27. Having considered the principle of law laid down above stated, no doubt that grant of anticipatory bail is in 26 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4021 OF 2023
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR exceptional cases. Considering the materials made available to this Court at this stage, there is nothing in the complaint and FIR that what is the role played by the petitioner into the alleged crime. The petitioner's name is not shown in the complaint and FIR.
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has filed a memo with documents showing that the petitioner is the Chairman of Dwaraka Credit Souharada Sahakari Sangha Ltd., also he is the Chairman of Himalaya Educational Trust, Ankola and he is also the Chiarman of Dr.Kamal and Sri.R.N.Nayak Medical Centre, Ankola. Further, in the complaint itself, it is shown that the victim injured is State Secretary of the Congress party and frst informant is having close nexus with the victim injured. Therefore, at this stage, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that due to political reasons there is an attempt of roping the petitioner into the alleged crime.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
29. Upon considering the remand applications produced at this stage before the Court, it is disclosed that the accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were apprehended at Mathuli Check post check and upon enquiry, they disclosed the name of accused No.1 and accused No.1 had offered money from them. Therefore, there is no material that these accused have stated the name of the petitioner. The Police have also arrested accused No.7, but the accused No.7 was in Bagalkot and accused No.8 was arrested in Belagavi and upon enquiring them, they disclosed the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they came into contact the accused persons through accused No.9. Also, upon making interrogation of them during the investigation, name of the petitioner is not found and revealed. The prosecution has only stated that the accused No.17 is private gunman of the petitioner. Except this, at this stage, as per the investigation revealed, there is no material against the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner showing involvement of the petitioner into the alleged crime.
30. As per the prosecution, the accused No.17 has made all financial arrangements to the accused No.17, but at this stage, there is no material that the petitioner has given financial assistance to accused No.17. Hence, at this stage, there is no exact or specific role of the petitioner into the alleged crime as per the investigation revealed as per the remand application made available to this Court. Therefore, at this stage, there is no material against the petitioner about his criminal antecedents.
31. Further, as above stated, the petitioner is Chairman of the Co-operative Society and Medical Institution and he is Director of the Medical College, therefore, found to be having deep roots in the Society. Therefore, these factors shows satisfying the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SIDDHARAM
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS so as to grant anticipatory bail.
32. Upon considering the progress in the investigation as argued by the learned AAG, at this stage, it is the allegation of the prosecution that both the petitioner and accused No.17 absconded to Maharashtra State and accused No.17 has acted as per the say of the petitioner. Except this at this stage, there is no significant input material with the learned AAG against the petitioner so as to deny the anticipatory bail.
33. Also, the learned AAG in his statement of objections at paragraph No.20 had stated that the offence might have been committed with respect to political matter and election. Considering this factor as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner for political reasons, the petitioner is being roped into the alleged crime sounds having concrete appearance. Hence, considering the principle of law laid down and guidelines issued by the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR Hon'ble Supreme Court as above discussed and in the decisions relied on by the counsel for respondent No.2/impleading applicant, the facts, circumstances, allegations and accusations are different in those cases not making grounds to deny grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case. Factual matrix is different but the principle of law laid down are followed in this case.
34. Grant of anticipatory bail is completely depending upon the facts and circumstances involved in the case. In JAI PRAKASH SINGH's case (supra), the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court was cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts that the appellant lodged an FIR against the respondent alleging that the informant and his elder brother Shiv Prakash Singh were having a medical shop for the last 2-3 years. On 05.06.2011, at around 10:00 p.m., his brother closed the shop and proceeded towards his house on his motorcycle and he was chased by the respondents on a motorcycle and stopped and they
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR opened an indiscriminate firing and thus, the deceased died on the spot. Here, the facts are that the respondent was found to be having involved in the alleged offence directly by firing and killed the deceased. Under these accusations, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
35. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRADEEP SHARMA case (supra), the accusations as revealed are that the respondent and the deceased were having enmity on account of election to the post of Sarpanch. On 10.09.2011, the respondent in order to get rid of the deceased conspired along with other accused persons and managed to call him to Pawar Tea House on the pretext of setting up of a tower in a filed, where they offered him poisoned milk rabri (sweet dish). After consuming the same, the deceased died. Hence, under these facts and circumstances, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR Supreme Court. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found direct involvement of the respondent in commission of offence alleged. Hence, grant of anticipatory bail was denied.
36. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BRIJMANI DEVI case (supra), the accusations as revealed are that the appellant is the mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar and she is the eyewitness to the killing of her son and according to the appellant, the accused therein had attempted to kill her son Rupesh Kumar in the year 2017 by firing at him and an FIR was lodged, but after lodging FIR, the respondent/accused had absconded for about 7 months. Also, there was pressure and threatening to withdraw the complaint by the complainant, failing which, he would eliminate the entire family. Under these facts, circumstances and accusations, the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
37. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 (supra), the anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court to the accused, who was facing charges under the POCSO Act. Considering the prima facie offence alleged that the girl is traumatized to the higher degree and the allegation against the accused were penetrative sexual assault and other heinous offences committed. Therefore, under these circumstances, the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court was cancelled. Therefore, where there is heinous offence committed having showing direct involvement of the accused, in those cases the anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in the present case, considering the facts and circumstances in the instant case, the petitioner's name is not found in the complaint and in the FIR and also the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 were arrested, but they have not named the petitioner. The only material for the
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR prosecution against the petitioner is that the petitioner is mastermind and had got committed the offence alleged through accused No.17. Even at this stage, the prosecution did not have any material to show that the petitioner had financed to accused No.17. Therefore, these makes difference whether to grant anticipatory bail or not with the accusations on the facts and circumstances in the above cited case, but considering the present case of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, the guidelines stated in the SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE's case is applicable so as to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
38. Furthermore, granting anticipatory bail does not mean scuttling the process of investigation. The interrogation is integral part of making investigation. Interrogation can be made either in the custody or by summoning the accused to the police office or in the house of the petitioner. There is no difference in quality of
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR interrogation putting a person in custody or summoning him to the police office or making interrogation in his house, but the essential thing is that the accused shall cooperate with the investigation to the police. Therefore, considering the above reasons, prima facie found that the police can very well investigate the petitioner by summoning to the police office or going over to his place according to convenience of the police investigating officer. Hence, considering the above factors, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the Court inclines to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the aforesaid reasons, but with the stringent conditions.
39. Further, as material produced by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having deep root with the Society being President of Himalaya Educational Society, Ankola, Chairman of the Dwaraka Credit Souhardha Society Ltd., and also the Director of Medical College and Hospital, chances of absconding and fleeing away from
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR justice is remote. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail with following conditions.
40. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner/accused No.18 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent/State Police in Crime No.64/2026 registered at Ankola Police Station, Uttara Kannada pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ankola for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 61 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the following conditions.
a) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall appear before the trial Court and shall
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR seek for bail within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
b) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
c) The petitioner shall furnish cash surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the Court.
d) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall not tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
e) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station once in three weeks between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. till filing charge sheet.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5945 CRL.P No. 100751 of 2026 HC-KAR
f) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall attend the Court regularly during the trial without fail. If not attend for consecutive two times, it entails cancellation of bail.
g) The petitioner/accused No.18 shall not leave territory of India without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(iii) Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR, SRA /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19