Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
Shri Mohammed Gouse, S/o. Abdul Lateef – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Through Gangavathi Town Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.102329 of 2025 (439 of Cr.PC/483 of BNSS)
Decided On : 03-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. Roshan Saheb Chabbi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, HCGP
Mandatory procedures under criminal law must be followed; lack of adherence can critically impact the prosecution's case and entitle defendants to bail.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 179 and 180 - Bail application granted to accused No.8 in Crime No.94/2025 for charges related to acceptance of fake currency by the petitioner - Investigating Officer failed to follow mandatory provisions regarding statements and searches, revealing potential weaknesses in the prosecution's case - Nature of allegations does not warrant extreme measures as they are not punishable by death or life imprisonment - Parity with other co-accused granted bail. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated based on allegations of using fake currency notes while purchasing alcohol in a bar, resulting in an FIR lodged by the bar owner. The police arrested co-accused but lacked specific evidence against the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to deny bail, noting the petitioner is not a habitual offender and that the charges do not warrant severe penalties.
Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner and the investigative lapses in following proper procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the bail should be granted considering the lack of evidence tying the petitioner directly to the alleged offenses and the procedural missteps by law enforcement.
Result: Petitioner's bail application allowed with conditions attached.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application and facts of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations about the investigation and evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. mandatory provisions under bnss not followed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. bail granted with conditions. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)
Heard Sri.Roshan Saheb Chabbi., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent-State.
2. The petitioner-accused No.8 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in Crime No.94/2025 of Gangavati Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 179 and 180 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :
One Gangadhar Vereshappa lodged first information report (FIR) with the respondent-Police alleging that on 02.05.2025 at about 7:00 p.m. when he was at the cash counter of the bar and restaurant, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the bar and took full bottle of Royal Stage whisky worth Rs.1,205-00. They tendered 3 notes of Rs.500 denomination totaling Rs.1,500/- and requested for change. On suspicion of the said notes, the complainant examined them with a currency verification machine and discovered that they were fake currency notes. Therefore, he informed the said aspect to the Manager and Assistant Manager and when they enquired with accused Nos.1 and 2 about fake notes they ran away from the spot. However, they were caught by other persons and produced before the police. Based on the complaint, Gangavathi police registered the case in Crime No.94/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 179 and 180 of BNS -2023, this lead to the registration of FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and recorded their voluntary statements. Pursuant to the voluntary statements of accused Nos.3 and 4, the name of accused No.8 was disclosed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that there is a prima-facie allegation against the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation and thus, prays for rejection of bail petition.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. On perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 had been to the bar and restaurant of first informant, and after purchasing alcohol bottles, accused Nos.1 and 2 tendered three currency notes of Rs.500/-, which appeared to be fake. On enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not answer properly and they tried to escape from the spot. However, they were secured by the general public and produced before the Police.
8. From the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, and the learned HCGP has not dispute the said aspect.
9. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer seized the fake currency notes total for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with original currency notes from the possession of all the accused persons. However, Investigating Officer has not followed the monitory provisions under Section 181 of BNSS -2023, which reads as under:
“181. Statements to police and use thereof.-(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafte
