The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the principle of parity, as the co-accused had already been granted bail after depositing the disputed amount, placing the petitioner on a similar footing.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST OF IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFENCE P/U/S 314, 316, 318(4), 317, 316(2) 319 R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023, IN CR.NO.161 DATED:04.11.2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.161/2025 filed by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 314 , 316, 318(4), 317, 316(2), 319 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) seeking anticipatory bail.

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2025 at about 10.15 p.m, the complainant Smt. Radhika Santhosh Kumar W/o Santhosh Kumar had lodged a complaint stating that she had pledged her gold ornaments weighing 288 grams 7 milligram in Star Gold Company. The said Company was being run by one Sri.Yogesh T., and the petitioner herein who is the father of accused No.1. According to the complainant she had availed a loan of Rs.18,25,500/-. Thereafter, though she repaid the said amount the petitioner herein and the accused No.1 failed to return the gold ornaments which the complainant had pledged. The complainant has learnt that accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated many customers like her. Hence, the complaint.

3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent – Police registered a case, conducted investigation and the investigation is under progress.

4. Heard Sri. Mahesha M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in this case. The petitioner did not have knowledge regarding the affairs of the Company. The petitioner is a sleeping partner. In fact, the Trial Court has granted bail to the accused No.1 on the ground that the accused No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.18,25,500/- in any nationalized bank. Therefore, the petitioner is standing on a better footing than accused No.1. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

6. Per Contra, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – State of Karnataka vehemently submitted that the Star Gold Company is being run by accused Nos.1 and 2 who are none other than son and father, respectively. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.18,25,500/- by pledging the gold ornaments. Thereafter, she has repaid the entire amount and asked them to return the gold ornaments. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to deceive her, failed to return the pledged gold ornaments. The petitioner and his son committed similar offences and the matter is pending for consideration. The investigation has to be conducted in respect of the said issue. Hence, at this stage, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Making such submission learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – State of Karnataka prays to reject the petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the com