Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Dhanwanth Singh Matharoo, S/o. Sh. Khazan Singh Matharoo – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Through C.C.B Police, Represented By Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Complex Bengaluru – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8143 of 2025
Decided On : 03-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, Sr. Counsel for Sri Rajendra V.G, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Patel, HCGP.

Court emphasizes that anticipatory bail is not an automatic right but must consider societal impact, especially in serious economic fraud cases involving large-scale deceit, prioritizing public justice over individual liberty.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act, 2023 - Sections 3(3), 3(5), 318(4), 336(2) - Anticipatory bail - Petitioner sought bail in light of serious allegations regarding issuance of fraudulent academic documents by a university - Court focused on the necessity of custodial interrogation given the petitioner's position as Vice Chancellor and the scale of the alleged crime. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Bail - Principles governing anticipatory bail - Courts must balance the rights of the accused against societal interest, especially in economic offences involving large-scale fraud. (Paras 10-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Vice Chancellor of a university, apprehended arrest over allegations of issuing fraudulent educational certificates without conducting examinations, with co-accused having confessed to the crime. Investigating authorities require custodial interrogation due to the serious nature of the offences and substantial evidence against the university administration.

Findings of Court:
No new circumstances justified granting of anticipatory bail; community interest outweighs personal liberty in economic crimes.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner's involvement was substantial enough to warrant custodial interrogation despite his claims of innocence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that serious economic offences require careful judicial discretion where the societal impact is considerable, thereby denying bail to safeguard public interest.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of allegations against the petitioner. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments for and against the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's reasoning and need for investigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. legal principles regarding anticipatory bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. final decision on anticipatory bail. (Para 16)

ORDER :

(S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.)

1. Petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in Crime No.63/2024 registered by CCB Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 36(3), 318(4) read with Section 3 (5) of BNS , 2023, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 482 of BNS S, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.63/2024 was registered by CCB Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 18(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(1) read with Section 3 (5) of BNS , 2023, against Mohan based on the first information dated 28.10.2024 received from Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, Chief Editor of a Digital News Media. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed bail application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.1522/2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court since charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the said petition. It appears that thereafter, a fresh bail application was filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.3514/2025 which was rejected on 09.05.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were arrested in the present case have been granted regular bail and accused No.4 has been granted anticipatory bail. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have confessed to the crime and they have stated that fraudulent and fake marks cards, degree certificates etc. were prepared by them. Petitioner is the Vice Chancellor of the University and he had no role in the alleged crime. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Since charge sheet is already filed, petitioner's custodial interrogation is no more required. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the employees of the University of which the petitioner is the Vice Chancellor. The allegation in the charge sheet is that without conducting any examinations, University was issuing fraudulent and fake marks cards and degree certificates of various courses including post graduate courses to the students after collecting huge money from them. Petitioner is the head of the University and considering the nature of allegations found, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no role in the alleged crime. Though enquiry notices have been issued to him, he has not cooperated for investigation. Charge sheet is filed only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and liberty is reserved for further investigation insofar as other accused persons, including the petitioner is concerned. It appears that similar fraud is committed even in other States and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who is the head of the University which has issued the fraudulent and fake marks cards, degree certificates etc. is necessary. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

6. First informant, who is the Chief Editor of a Digital News Media, based on credible information had conducted a sting operation in the office of accused No.1 - Mohan and found that he was issuing marks cards and degree certificat