THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO BE ALLOWED AND THE RESPONDENT POLICE MAY BE DIRECTED TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RESPECT OF CR.NO.110/2025 OF VISHVESHWARAPURAM P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 316(2),318(4) OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE 3rd ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking to set aside the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.5789/2025 on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application filed for grant of anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

Brief facts

2. One Naresh Joshi, General Manager of Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who was engaged in the manufacture and repair of jewellery work, was entrusted with about 9022.850 grams of mixed gold bullion and 22-carat gold ornaments. It is stated that despite such entrust, the petitioner failed to return the gold and ornaments and thereafter, became untraceable. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.110/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS, 2023').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

(i) the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated;

(ii) the dispute arises out of the business transaction and civil in nature;

(iii) he has no criminal antecedents and he is permanent resident of Bengaluru;

(iv) he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court;

(v) the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and charge sheet has not been filed despite filing of FIR on 27.06.2025;

(vi) the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application without proper consideration.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submits that there is a strong prima- facie case against the petitioner. Substantial quantity of gold has been misappropriated. The petitioner is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. There is likelihood of fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. Investigation is in progress and custodial interrogation is necessary.

5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out any ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. It is evident from the materials placed on record that the complaint is against the entrustment of substantial quantity of gold to the petitioner. The allegation of entrustment is disputed by the petitioner. The allegation of the complainant is also about non-return of the gold. The petitioner has not made himself available either to the complainant or returned to the Court or subjected himself to the Investigating Authority. The conduct of the petitioner remaining unavailable, prima- facie indicates that he is evading the process of law. This aspect weighs heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail. The magnitude of the alleged misappropriation is significant and the gold entrusted pertains to the customers of the complainant thereby invoking public interest and not merely a private dispute. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the matter is of a civil dispute cannot be accepted at this stage. The investigation is still in progress. The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail requires this Court to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of absconding and likelihood of tampering the evidence.

7. Applying the said principles, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out no ground for grant of anticipat