Karnataka High Court
Narasayya S/O Husenappa vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5699
CRL.P No. 201382 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201382 OF 2025
(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NARASAYYA S/O HUSENAPPA,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O. GONAWAR, TQ.SINDHANOOR,
DIST.RAICHUR-584143.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KARTIC, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed THROUGH SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION,
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIR,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF HIGH COURT KALABURAGI-585103,
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/S. 482 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO,
GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO.288/2024 OF SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION, YADGIR
DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES OF PUNISHABLE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5699
CRL.P No. 201382 of 2025
HC-KAR
UNDER SECTION 409, 420, 427 OF IPC, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested in Crime No.288/2024 of Shahapur police station, Yadgir district, pending on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions judge, Yadgir sitting at Shorapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri Kartic, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5699 CRL.P No. 201382 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
4. Accused No.1 is said to be the Branch Manager and accused No.2 is the employee in Canara Bank, Sagar Branch. It was found that, on 05.03.2024 when surprise cash verification in the ATM machine at Sagar Branch was conducted, there was shortage of cash of Rs.14,60,300/-. Immediately, notices were issued to accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that, accused No.2 has given reply to the notice stating that, since there was rush in the Bank, he was not aware about shortage of cash in the ATM machine and he could not visit and tally the cash therein. Not -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5699 CRL.P No. 201382 of 2025 HC-KAR being satisfied with the reply, the petitioner was kept under suspension. The private complaint was filed by the Manager against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316 and 324 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. Even thereafter, the petitioner could not be apprehended. The petitioner is before this Court contending that, he is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Therefore, he seeks for anticipatory bail.
5. The allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Immediately after noticing that, there was shortage of cash in the ATM machine, enquiry was held and notices were issued to accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the joint custodians of the cash in the ATM machine. The bald reply was given by accused No.2/petitioner stating that, he could not verify the cash and tally the same on daily basis. When it is specifically stated that, he was the joint custodian of the cash along with accused No.1 being the Manager of the Branch, the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5699 CRL.P No. 201382 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner/accused No.2 is accountable for the same. The investigation is still under progress since both the accused are said to be absconding.
6. Taking into consideration the nature of offences alleged, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and he is not entitled for grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:PK