- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SRI.IMRAN H v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Sri Imran H, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.3/2025 registered at Santhebennur Police Station, Davanagere District, for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 318(2) of the BNSS Act, 2023. The complaint was lodged by Rabiya Basri, alleging that the petitioner, with whom she was acquainted as a fellow teacher at Wisdom School, Hosur Village, had promised marriage, engaged in sexual intercourse, and subsequently cheated her. The petitioner directly approached the High Court for anticipatory bail without first applying to the Sessions Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner can directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail without first seeking relief from the Sessions Court.
- Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify bypassing the Sessions Court in this case.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain bail applications; hence, the petitioner approached the High Court directly.
- The petitioner was allegedly kidnapped and detained by the complainant’s henchmen from December 4, 2024, to April 9, 2024, with a missing complaint registered by his father.
- The allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated, and there is a threat to his safety.
- Relied on precedents including the Bombay High Court judgment in Mohanlal Nandram Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra (2007 CRL.L.J.4656) and a prior Karnataka High Court decision in Crl.P.No.3213/2013.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohanlal Nandram Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 CRL.L.J.4656 | Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court in bail applications and the prudence of first approaching the Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist. | The Court reiterated that the petitioner should approach the Sessions Court first unless exceptional reasons justify bypassing it; no such reasons were found here. |
| Karnataka High Court, Crl.P.No.3213/2013 (disposed 11.06.2013) | Granting anticipatory bail where no FIR was registered and considering threat of arrest. | The Court found this precedent inapplicable as the petitioner had not approached the Sessions Court first. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the concurrent jurisdiction of both the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain anticipatory bail applications. However, it emphasized the prudence and established practice that the Sessions Court should be approached first, except in exceptional circumstances. The Court examined the petitioner's claims and found no exceptional grounds warranting direct filing before the High Court. Reliance on the Bombay High Court decision underscored this principle. The Court also distinguished the second precedent cited by the petitioner, noting it involved a scenario where no FIR was registered and the accused had first approached the Sessions Court, unlike the present case. The Court reasoned that entertaining the petition without exceptional reasons would set an undesirable precedent, leading to the High Court being burdened with such petitions routinely.
Holding and Implications
The petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court.
The direct consequence is that the petitioner must first approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail relief before approaching the High Court. No new precedent has been established; the ruling reinforces the procedural norm of exhausting lower court remedies first, thereby maintaining judicial discipline and preventing unnecessary High Court intervention.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4503
CRL.P No. 362 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 362 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) /
482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. IMRAN H
AGE 37 YEARS,
S/O ASLAM H, R/AT SANTEBANNURU POST,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SANTHEBENNUR
POLICE STATION-572 201,
CHENNAGIRI,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
O/O ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BUILDING COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADV. FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION OF PETITIONER
R
- 2 -
FOR THE GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.3/2025 PUNISHABLE U/S 69, 318(2) OF BNS ACT, PENDING IN THE
COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT,
CHENNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REGISTERED BY
SANTEBANNUR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AS
PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 28.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 31.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
In this petition preferred under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, petitioner/accused in Crime No.3/2025 of Santhebennur Police Station has sought to release him on anticipatory bail.
2. Above case is registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 69, 318(2) of BNS, 2023, on a complaint lodged by Rabiya Basri.
3. Complaint averments in brief are that, the complainant and the accused were working as teachers in one Wisdom School, Hosur Village, hence, they got
- 3 -
acquainted with each other. It is alleged, the accused with a promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the complainant and later cheated her etc.
4. Petitioner has directly approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. He has not availed the remedy before the Sessions Court.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that both Sessions Court and High Court are having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking bail and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court directly. He would contend that the petitioner was kidnapped by the henchman of the complainant and detained from 04.12.2024 to 09.04.2024. A missing complaint was filed by his father on 05.12.2024, registered as Crime No.232/2024 at Santhebennur Police Station, Davanagere. He contended that the entire allegations made against the petitioner are false and created and there is a threat to the petitioner.
- 4 -
6. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohanlal Nandram Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 CRL.L.J.4656 and a judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.3213/2013 disposed on 11.06.2013.
7. Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding a petition for bail, it is prudent for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court at the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances to file such application directly before the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court. In the above decision rendered by the Bombay High Court, the said position has been reiterated. No exceptional reasons are made out so as to entertain the instant petition. If an adverse order is passed by the Sessions Court, it is always open for the petitioner to file a petition before this Court for the same relief. If the instant petition seeking anticipatory bail is entertained without there being any exceptional grounds made out, it will set a precedent
- 5 -
and in every case, this Court has to deal with such petitions.
8. In the second decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is a case wherein no FIR was registered, hence the petition seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that no blanket order can be passed. This Court granted anticipatory bail considering the threat of arrest faced by the accused therein. In the said case, the accused had approached the Sessions Court in the first instance. The said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
9. For the foregoing reasons, petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the Sessions Court.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
HB/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Ct:ar
Alert