- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11324 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQ @ KARPIL SIDDIQ S/O. ABBULLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT PALLAM HOUSE, PYEVALIKE KASORGUD, KERALA-671438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED ARIF PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LETHIF .B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA REPRESENTED BY A Location: HIGH KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION COURT OF D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY SPPKARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. J. SURENDRA S/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT D NO. 2-45, BEEDI HALE JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT - 575007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.1187/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379, 411, 414 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PREVENTION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC VI COURT, D.K REGISTERED BY KANKANADY TOWN P.S., PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is said to be accused No.2 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.1187/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act. 2. Heard Sri.Syed Arif Pasha, learned counsel for Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.165/2017 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the offences again as afore-quoted. The concerned Court acquits accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6, who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.1187/2025, which is now hanging on the head of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons that went into acquitting the other accused would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one relate to theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act. If it is a collective act, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be singled out for a different treatment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 5. Learned HCGP would, however, refute the submissions contending that the petitioner has escaped trial. Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like the other accused and would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue before the Court relates to the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, which is the offence relate to theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted all the other accused, who were available for trial on the following reasons: "13. ಅಂಶ ಸಂ - 1 ಂದ 4 :- ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ 1 ಂದ 4 ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಒಂದ ೊ ಂದು ಪ!ರಕ$ಾ&ರುವ(ದ ಂದ ಮತು+ ಒಂದರ ಅಂಶದ ೕ,ನ ಚ/ೆ0ಯು - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 ಉ3ದ ಮೂರು ಅಂಶಗಳ,4ನ ಚ/ೆ0ಯ,4 ಪ(ನ5ಾವತ0 ೆ6ಾಗುವ ಾರಣ ಾ & ಸದ ಅಂಶಗಳನು8 ಒ9:;ೆ ಚ/ೆ0;ೆ <ೆ;ೆದು ೊಳ=>ಾ&?ೆ. 14. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ,4 ಆ5ೋBಗಳ CರುDಧ FಾGರುವ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 HಸIಂ?ೇಹ$ಾ& ರುಜು$ಾತುಪGಸುವ LೊMೆ;ಾ ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪPದವರ ೕ,ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅದ ಾ & ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.1, ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ 3 ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಂದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.3 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, H.B.1 ಂದ H.B.6 ఎంబ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳನು8 ಗುರು[W ೊಂGರು<ಾ+5ೆ.

15. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.1 ಸು5ೇಂದ@ ]^ ,ಂಗಪ_ ಪ!`ಾ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 ಾ 6ಾಲಯ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ನನ8 ದನವನು8 6ಾರು ಕಳ=ತನ FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ದೂರನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. QಾSಯು ದೂರು ಮತು+ ಸeಳ ಮಹಜf ಗಳ,4ರುವ ತನ8 ಸcಗಳನು8 ೋG ಗುರು[WದುX, ದೂರನು8 HB 1 ಎಂದು, ಸeಳ ಮಹಜರನು8 HB 2 ಎಂದು, ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳ,4ರುವ QಾSಯ ಸcಗಳನು8 HB1(ಎ), HB2(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳ,4 ಏನು ಬ5ೆಯ>ಾ&?ೆkಂದು ನನ;ೆ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ನನ8 ಸಮPಮ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಮಹಜf FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 lಾMೆಯ,4 ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಸದ Cಷಯದ ಬ;ೆn ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. 16. Fಾನ ಸLಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ0 ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮ[ ೕ5ೆ;ೆ Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ರವರನು8 ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪ@ಕರಣ ಪ@[ಕೂಲ QಾSkಂದು ಪ ಗoW Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾಲು Fಾಡ>ಾ&ದುX, ತಮa Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4 ಅNOೕಜಕರು b ಾಂಕ 19.05.2017 ರಂದು 5ಾ[@ 12.45 ಗಂsೆ;ೆ Hಮa ಮ ೆಯ ಹ9:ಯ,4 ಕ9:ರುವ ದನವನು8 ವtೆ Fಾಡುವ ಉ?ೆXೕಶbಂದ 6ಾ5ೋ ಕಳವ( FಾG ೊಂಡು ಾ ನ,4 <ೆ;ೆದು ೊಂಡು Lೋ&ರುವ ಬ;ೆn Hೕವ( d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HB-1 ರಂ<ೆ ದೂರನು8 HೕGದುX, ಅ?ೇ bನ Hೕವ( <ೋ Wದ ಘಟ ಾ ಸeಳವನು8 d,ೕಸರು /ಾQಾ 2 ಮತು+ 5 ರವರ ಸಮPಮದ,4 ಮtಾ ಹ8 12.30 ಂದ 01.00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026

ಗಂsೆ;ೆ HB-2 ರಂ<ೆ ಮಹಜf FಾGದುX, Hೕವ( ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆ;ೆ ಸc FಾGದುX, b ಾಂಕ 30.07.2018 ರಂದು d,ೕಸರು Hಮaನು8 lಾMೆ;ೆ ಬರಲು [3WದುX, ಅದರಂ<ೆ Hೕವ( ಮತು+ /ಾQಾ 2 ರವರು lಾMೆ;ೆ Lೋ?ಾಗ, lಾMೆಯ,4 1, 2, 5 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಗ3ದುX, ಅವರನು8 ೋG ಗುರು[WದುX, ಸದ C/ಾರದ ಬ;ೆn ಅ?ೇ bನ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರು[+ೕರ ಎಂದು ಸೂxW?ಾಗ QಾSಯು ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಸೂxWರುವ ಎ>ಾ4 ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳನು8 ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. QಾSಯು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& QಾS;ೆ ಓb Lೇ3ದುX, ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯ,4ರುವ Cಷಯಗಳನು8 QಾSಯು ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರುವ ಾರಣ ಸದ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HB3 ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯ Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4ಯೂ ಸLಾ ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪರ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ LೊರLೊ{aರುವ(bಲ4. ಆದX ಂದ ಅNOಜ ೆಯು H.B.1 ನು8 HರುBWಲ4$ೆನು8ವ ಅNUಾ@ಯ ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( ಬಂbರುತ+?ೆ. 17. ಸದ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.2 ಯ[^ ]^ ರ<ಾ8ಕರ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಎಂದು ಮತು+ /ಾQಾ3 |ರ} ]^ ,ಂಗಪ_ ಪ!`ಾ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@Qಾ3 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, Uಾ@Qಾ2 ರವರು ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 ನನ;ೆ /ಾQಾ1 ರವರು ;ೊತು+. ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಬ;ೆn ನನ;ೇನೂ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಏನು FಾGರು<ಾ+5ೆಂದು ನನ;ೆ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ ಘಟ ೆಯನು8 ೋGರುವ(?ಾ& Lೇ3 ೆಯ ಾ8ಗ,ೕ ಮತು+ ಮರು Lೇ3 ೆಯ ಾ8ಗ,ೕ HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರು ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 /ಾQಾ 1 ರವರು ನನ8 ಅಣ~, /ಾQಾ 2 ರವರು ನಮa ಮ ೆ5ೆಕ5ೆಯವರು. ಾ 6ಾಲಯ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBತರನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಈ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ;ೆn ಾನು 6ಾರು ಬ3ಯೂ ೇ3 [3ದು ೊಂGರುವ(bಲ4. ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಬ;ೆn ನನ;ೇನು ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ನಮa ದನವನು8 6ಾರೂ ಕಳವ( FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ;ೆn Lೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ.

18. Fಾನ ಸLಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ0 ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮ[ ೕ5ೆ;ೆ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ 3 ರವರನು8 ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪ@ಕರಣ ಪ@[ಕೂಲ QಾSಗyೆಂದು ಪ ಗoW, Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,;ೊಳಪGW?ಾಗ, ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಸೂxWರುವ ಎ>ಾ4 ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳನು8 QಾSಗಳ ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 b ಾಂಕ 19.05.2017 ರಂದು Uಾ@Qಾ2 ರವರು dೕ,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ Lೇ3 ಮತು+ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 Lಾಗೂ Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ Lೇ3 ೆಯನು8 ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& QಾSಗ3;ೆ ಓb, Lೇ3ದುX, ಅವ(ಗಳ,4ರುವ Cಷಯಗಳನು8 QಾSಗಳ ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರುವ ಾರಣ ಸದ Lೇ3 ೆಗಳನು8 HB4, HB6 ಎಂದು ಮತು+ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಗಳನು8 H.B.5 ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯ Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4ಯೂ ಸLಾ ಅNOೕಜ ೆ;ೆ ಪ!ರಕ$ಾದಂತಹ 6ಾವ(?ೇ QಾP•ವನು8 ಪ€ೆದು ೊಳ=ಲು ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು Cಫಲ5ಾ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆ. 19. ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಮತು+ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರುಗಳ QಾP•ಗಳನು8 ಪ ‚ೕ,W?ಾಗ, ಅNOೕಜ ೆ;ೆ ಪ!ರಕ$ಾದಂತಹ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ QಾP•bಂದ LೊರLೊ{aರುವ(bಲ4, ಆದX ಂದ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ ಆ5ೋBಗyೆƒಂb;ೆ 5ಾ„ FಾG ೊಂGರುವ(?ಾ& ಕಂಡುಬರುತ+?ೆ. Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಂದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.3 QಾSಗಳ QಾP•ವ( ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ೕ>ೆ ಆ5ೋBWರುವಂತಹ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಎಸ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆಂಬುದನು8 ರುಜು$ಾತುಪGಸಲು ಸLಾಯ ಾ ಆ&ರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( ಅNUಾ@ಯಪಡು<ಾ+ Lಾಗೂ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ QಾP•bಂದುಂsಾಗುವ ಅನುFಾನದ >ಾಭವನು8 ಆ5ೋBಗ3;ೆ Hೕಡು<ಾ+, ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ೕ,ರುವ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 ಸಂಶ6ಾ[ೕತ$ಾ& QಾNೕತುಪGಸಲು ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& Cಫಲ5ಾ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆಂದು ಅಂಶ ಸಂ 1 ಂದ 4 ನು8 ನ ಾ5ಾತaಕ$ಾ& ಉತ+ ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. 20. ಅಂಶ ಸಂ - 5 :- ಲ ಂಡಂ<ೆ ಚx0W ಬಂದ Hಣ0ಯದಂ<ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ?ೇಶವನು8 ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( FಾGರುತ+?ೆ. ಆ?ೇಶ

ದಂಡ ಪ@|@k ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 248(1) ರGಯ,4 ಪ@ದತ+$ಾ&ರುವ ಅ† ಾರವನು8 ಚ>ಾ‡W ಆ5ೋBಗಳ Cರುದˆ Fಾಡ>ಾದ ‰ಾರ[ೕಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 379, 411, 414 ಮತು+ ;ೋಹ<ೆ HŠೇಧ ಾ‡?ೆ ಕಲಂ 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 ರ ಆ5ೋಪಗ3ಂದ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ ‹ಕದX ‡ಂದ ?ೋಷಮುಕ+ರ ಾ8& ಖು>ಾQೆ;ೊ3Wರು<ೆ+ೕ ೆ. ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಬ5ೆದು ೊ9:ರುವ `ಾ{ೕನು ಮುಚŒ3 ೆಗಳನು8 ರದುX;ೊ3ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 ದಂಡ ಪ@|@k ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 437(ಎ) ರGಯ,4 ಾOೕ0ನುaಖ$ಾ& ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಬ5ೆದು ೊ9:ರುವ ಮುಚŒ3 ೆಗಳನು8 6 [ಂಗಳ ಗಳವ5ೆ;ೆ `ಾ ಯ,4 ಸತಕ ದುX. 2 ೇ ಆ5ೋB6ಾದ ಅಬೂಬಕ f WbX• @ ಕB0 WbX• ಮತು+ 4 ೇ ಆ5ೋB6ಾದ ಅಬುX• ಸ>ಾಂ @ Uಾವ!ರು ಸ>ಾಂ ರವರನು8 ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣbಂದ •ೇಪ0GWದುX, 2 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಯ Cರುದˆ W.W.ಸಂ :2752/2019 ಮತು+ 4 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಯ CರುದX W.W.ಸಂ 329/2021 ಪ@ಕರಣಗಳನು8 ?ಾಖ,ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. ಆದX ಂದ •ೇಪ0GWದ ಪ@ಕರಣಗಳ ಇತ ಥ0$ಾಗುವವ5ೆಗೂ ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಕಡತವನು8 Lಾಗೂ ಸ”ತು+ಗಳನು8 ಾಶಪGಸತಕ ದಲ4." 8. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If that be the case against the other accused for passing an order of acquittal, it cannot be said that the petitioner would get convicted, if a trial is permitted on the same set of evidence. In that light, to save the precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate the same.

9. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows: “12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding.

Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: “As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C.

in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” 14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026

present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.

15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.

16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court. 17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992

CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.” - 14 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police. 10. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.1187/2025 pending before the JMFC VI Court, Dakshina Kannada of Kankanady Town Police Station, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. iii. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11324 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQ @ KARPIL SIDDIQ S/O. ABBULLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT PALLAM HOUSE, PYEVALIKE KASORGUD, KERALA-671438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED ARIF PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LETHIF .B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA REPRESENTED BY A Location: HIGH KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION COURT OF D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY SPPKARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. J. SURENDRA S/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT D NO. 2-45, BEEDI HALE JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT - 575007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.1187/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379, 411, 414 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PREVENTION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC VI COURT, D.K REGISTERED BY KANKANADY TOWN P.S., PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is said to be accused No.2 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.1187/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act. 2. Heard Sri.Syed Arif Pasha, learned counsel for Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.165/2017 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the offences again as afore-quoted. The concerned Court acquits accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6, who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.1187/2025, which is now hanging on the head of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons that went into acquitting the other accused would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one relate to theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act. If it is a collective act, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be singled out for a different treatment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 5. Learned HCGP would, however, refute the submissions contending that the petitioner has escaped trial. Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like the other accused and would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue before the Court relates to the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, which is the offence relate to theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in theft of cattle and transportation, sale or purchaser of cattle. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted all the other accused, who were available for trial on the following reasons: "13. ಅಂಶ ಸಂ - 1 ಂದ 4 :- ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ 1 ಂದ 4 ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಒಂದ ೊ ಂದು ಪ!ರಕ$ಾ&ರುವ(ದ ಂದ ಮತು+ ಒಂದರ ಅಂಶದ ೕ,ನ ಚ/ೆ0ಯು - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 ಉ3ದ ಮೂರು ಅಂಶಗಳ,4ನ ಚ/ೆ0ಯ,4 ಪ(ನ5ಾವತ0 ೆ6ಾಗುವ ಾರಣ ಾ & ಸದ ಅಂಶಗಳನು8 ಒ9:;ೆ ಚ/ೆ0;ೆ <ೆ;ೆದು ೊಳ=>ಾ&?ೆ. 14. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ,4 ಆ5ೋBಗಳ CರುDಧ FಾGರುವ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 HಸIಂ?ೇಹ$ಾ& ರುಜು$ಾತುಪGಸುವ LೊMೆ;ಾ ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪPದವರ ೕ,ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅದ ಾ & ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.1, ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ 3 ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಂದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.3 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, H.B.1 ಂದ H.B.6 ఎంబ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳನು8 ಗುರು[W ೊಂGರು<ಾ+5ೆ.

15. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.1 ಸು5ೇಂದ@ ]^ ,ಂಗಪ_ ಪ!`ಾ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 ಾ 6ಾಲಯ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ನನ8 ದನವನು8 6ಾರು ಕಳ=ತನ FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ದೂರನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. QಾSಯು ದೂರು ಮತು+ ಸeಳ ಮಹಜf ಗಳ,4ರುವ ತನ8 ಸcಗಳನು8 ೋG ಗುರು[WದುX, ದೂರನು8 HB 1 ಎಂದು, ಸeಳ ಮಹಜರನು8 HB 2 ಎಂದು, ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳ,4ರುವ QಾSಯ ಸcಗಳನು8 HB1(ಎ), HB2(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆಗಳ,4 ಏನು ಬ5ೆಯ>ಾ&?ೆkಂದು ನನ;ೆ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ನನ8 ಸಮPಮ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಮಹಜf FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 lಾMೆಯ,4 ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಸದ Cಷಯದ ಬ;ೆn ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. 16. Fಾನ ಸLಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ0 ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮ[ ೕ5ೆ;ೆ Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ರವರನು8 ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪ@ಕರಣ ಪ@[ಕೂಲ QಾSkಂದು ಪ ಗoW Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾಲು Fಾಡ>ಾ&ದುX, ತಮa Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4 ಅNOೕಜಕರು b ಾಂಕ 19.05.2017 ರಂದು 5ಾ[@ 12.45 ಗಂsೆ;ೆ Hಮa ಮ ೆಯ ಹ9:ಯ,4 ಕ9:ರುವ ದನವನು8 ವtೆ Fಾಡುವ ಉ?ೆXೕಶbಂದ 6ಾ5ೋ ಕಳವ( FಾG ೊಂಡು ಾ ನ,4 <ೆ;ೆದು ೊಂಡು Lೋ&ರುವ ಬ;ೆn Hೕವ( d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HB-1 ರಂ<ೆ ದೂರನು8 HೕGದುX, ಅ?ೇ bನ Hೕವ( <ೋ Wದ ಘಟ ಾ ಸeಳವನು8 d,ೕಸರು /ಾQಾ 2 ಮತು+ 5 ರವರ ಸಮPಮದ,4 ಮtಾ ಹ8 12.30 ಂದ 01.00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026

ಗಂsೆ;ೆ HB-2 ರಂ<ೆ ಮಹಜf FಾGದುX, Hೕವ( ಸದ ?ಾಖ>ೆ;ೆ ಸc FಾGದುX, b ಾಂಕ 30.07.2018 ರಂದು d,ೕಸರು Hಮaನು8 lಾMೆ;ೆ ಬರಲು [3WದುX, ಅದರಂ<ೆ Hೕವ( ಮತು+ /ಾQಾ 2 ರವರು lಾMೆ;ೆ Lೋ?ಾಗ, lಾMೆಯ,4 1, 2, 5 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಗ3ದುX, ಅವರನು8 ೋG ಗುರು[WದುX, ಸದ C/ಾರದ ಬ;ೆn ಅ?ೇ bನ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರು[+ೕರ ಎಂದು ಸೂxW?ಾಗ QಾSಯು ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಸೂxWರುವ ಎ>ಾ4 ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳನು8 ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. QಾSಯು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& QಾS;ೆ ಓb Lೇ3ದುX, ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯ,4ರುವ Cಷಯಗಳನು8 QಾSಯು ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರುವ ಾರಣ ಸದ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HB3 ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯ Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4ಯೂ ಸLಾ ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪರ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ LೊರLೊ{aರುವ(bಲ4. ಆದX ಂದ ಅNOಜ ೆಯು H.B.1 ನು8 HರುBWಲ4$ೆನು8ವ ಅNUಾ@ಯ ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( ಬಂbರುತ+?ೆ. 17. ಸದ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ /ಾ.Qಾ.2 ಯ[^ ]^ ರ<ಾ8ಕರ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಎಂದು ಮತು+ /ಾQಾ3 |ರ} ]^ ,ಂಗಪ_ ಪ!`ಾ ರವರನು8 Uಾ@Qಾ3 ಎಂದು C/ಾರMೆ;ೊಳಪGWದುX, Uಾ@Qಾ2 ರವರು ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 ನನ;ೆ /ಾQಾ1 ರವರು ;ೊತು+. ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಬ;ೆn ನನ;ೇನೂ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಏನು FಾGರು<ಾ+5ೆಂದು ನನ;ೆ ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ ಘಟ ೆಯನು8 ೋGರುವ(?ಾ& Lೇ3 ೆಯ ಾ8ಗ,ೕ ಮತು+ ಮರು Lೇ3 ೆಯ ಾ8ಗ,ೕ HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರು ತಮa ಮುಖ C/ಾರMೆಯ,4 /ಾQಾ 1 ರವರು ನನ8 ಅಣ~, /ಾQಾ 2 ರವರು ನಮa ಮ ೆ5ೆಕ5ೆಯವರು. ಾ 6ಾಲಯ ಮುಂbರುವ ಆ5ೋBತರನು8 ಈ cಂ?ೆ ಎ,4ಯೂ ೋGರುವ(bಲ4. ಈ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ;ೆn ಾನು 6ಾರು ಬ3ಯೂ ೇ3 [3ದು ೊಂGರುವ(bಲ4. ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಬ;ೆn ನನ;ೇನು ;ೊ[+ಲ4. ನಮa ದನವನು8 6ಾರೂ ಕಳವ( FಾGರುವ(bಲ4. ಾನು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ;ೆn Lೇ3 ೆಯನು8 HೕGರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ನುGbರು<ಾ+5ೆ.

18. Fಾನ ಸLಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ0 ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಾ 6ಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮ[ ೕ5ೆ;ೆ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ 3 ರವರನು8 ಅNOೕಜ ಾ ಪ@ಕರಣ ಪ@[ಕೂಲ QಾSಗyೆಂದು ಪ ಗoW, Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,;ೊಳಪGW?ಾಗ, ಅNOೕಜಕರು ಸೂxWರುವ ಎ>ಾ4 ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳನು8 QಾSಗಳ ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರು<ಾ+5ೆ. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 b ಾಂಕ 19.05.2017 ರಂದು Uಾ@Qಾ2 ರವರು dೕ,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ Lೇ3 ಮತು+ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಯನು8 Lಾಗೂ Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರು d,ೕಸ ;ೆ HೕGರುವ Lೇ3 ೆಯನು8 ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& QಾSಗ3;ೆ ಓb, Lೇ3ದುX, ಅವ(ಗಳ,4ರುವ Cಷಯಗಳನು8 QಾSಗಳ ಅಲ4ಗyೆbರುವ ಾರಣ ಸದ Lೇ3 ೆಗಳನು8 HB4, HB6 ಎಂದು ಮತು+ ಮರುLೇ3 ೆಗಳನು8 H.B.5 ಎಂದು ಗುರು[ಸ>ಾ&ರುತ+?ೆ. ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯ Uಾ9ೕ ಸ$ಾ,ನ,4ಯೂ ಸLಾ ಅNOೕಜ ೆ;ೆ ಪ!ರಕ$ಾದಂತಹ 6ಾವ(?ೇ QಾP•ವನು8 ಪ€ೆದು ೊಳ=ಲು ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು Cಫಲ5ಾ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆ. 19. ದೂರು?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಮತು+ ಪ@ತ P QಾS?ಾರ5ಾದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.2 ಮತು+ Uಾ@Qಾ3 ರವರುಗಳ QಾP•ಗಳನು8 ಪ ‚ೕ,W?ಾಗ, ಅNOೕಜ ೆ;ೆ ಪ!ರಕ$ಾದಂತಹ 6ಾವ(?ೇ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ QಾP•bಂದ LೊರLೊ{aರುವ(bಲ4, ಆದX ಂದ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ ಆ5ೋBಗyೆƒಂb;ೆ 5ಾ„ FಾG ೊಂGರುವ(?ಾ& ಕಂಡುಬರುತ+?ೆ. Uಾ@.Qಾ.1 ಂದ Uಾ@.Qಾ.3 QಾSಗಳ QಾP•ವ( ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ೕ>ೆ ಆ5ೋBWರುವಂತಹ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಎಸ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆಂಬುದನು8 ರುಜು$ಾತುಪGಸಲು ಸLಾಯ ಾ ಆ&ರುವ(bಲ4$ೆಂದು ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( ಅNUಾ@ಯಪಡು<ಾ+ Lಾಗೂ ಸದ QಾSಗಳ QಾP•bಂದುಂsಾಗುವ ಅನುFಾನದ >ಾಭವನು8 ಆ5ೋBಗ3;ೆ Hೕಡು<ಾ+, ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ೕ,ರುವ ಆ5ೋಪಗಳನು8 ಸಂಶ6ಾ[ೕತ$ಾ& QಾNೕತುಪGಸಲು ಅNOೕಜ ೆಯು ಸಂಪ!ಣ0$ಾ& Cಫಲ5ಾ&ರು<ಾ+5ೆಂದು ಅಂಶ ಸಂ 1 ಂದ 4 ನು8 ನ ಾ5ಾತaಕ$ಾ& ಉತ+ ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. 20. ಅಂಶ ಸಂ - 5 :- ಲ ಂಡಂ<ೆ ಚx0W ಬಂದ Hಣ0ಯದಂ<ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ?ೇಶವನು8 ಈ ಾ 6ಾಲಯವ( FಾGರುತ+?ೆ. ಆ?ೇಶ

ದಂಡ ಪ@|@k ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 248(1) ರGಯ,4 ಪ@ದತ+$ಾ&ರುವ ಅ† ಾರವನು8 ಚ>ಾ‡W ಆ5ೋBಗಳ Cರುದˆ Fಾಡ>ಾದ ‰ಾರ[ೕಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 379, 411, 414 ಮತು+ ;ೋಹ<ೆ HŠೇಧ ಾ‡?ೆ ಕಲಂ 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 ರ ಆ5ೋಪಗ3ಂದ ಆ5ೋBಗಳನು8 ಈ ‹ಕದX ‡ಂದ ?ೋಷಮುಕ+ರ ಾ8& ಖು>ಾQೆ;ೊ3Wರು<ೆ+ೕ ೆ. ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಬ5ೆದು ೊ9:ರುವ `ಾ{ೕನು ಮುಚŒ3 ೆಗಳನು8 ರದುX;ೊ3ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 ದಂಡ ಪ@|@k ಸಂc<ೆ ಕಲಂ 437(ಎ) ರGಯ,4 ಾOೕ0ನುaಖ$ಾ& ಆ5ೋBಗಳ ಬ5ೆದು ೊ9:ರುವ ಮುಚŒ3 ೆಗಳನು8 6 [ಂಗಳ ಗಳವ5ೆ;ೆ `ಾ ಯ,4 ಸತಕ ದುX. 2 ೇ ಆ5ೋB6ಾದ ಅಬೂಬಕ f WbX• @ ಕB0 WbX• ಮತು+ 4 ೇ ಆ5ೋB6ಾದ ಅಬುX• ಸ>ಾಂ @ Uಾವ!ರು ಸ>ಾಂ ರವರನು8 ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣbಂದ •ೇಪ0GWದುX, 2 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಯ Cರುದˆ W.W.ಸಂ :2752/2019 ಮತು+ 4 ೇ ಆ5ೋBಯ CರುದX W.W.ಸಂ 329/2021 ಪ@ಕರಣಗಳನು8 ?ಾಖ,ಸ>ಾ&?ೆ. ಆದX ಂದ •ೇಪ0GWದ ಪ@ಕರಣಗಳ ಇತ ಥ0$ಾಗುವವ5ೆಗೂ ಈ ಪ@ಕರಣದ ಕಡತವನು8 Lಾಗೂ ಸ”ತು+ಗಳನು8 ಾಶಪGಸತಕ ದಲ4." 8. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If that be the case against the other accused for passing an order of acquittal, it cannot be said that the petitioner would get convicted, if a trial is permitted on the same set of evidence. In that light, to save the precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate the same.

9. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows: “12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding.

Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: “As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C.

in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” 14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026

present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.

15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.

16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court. 17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992

CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.” - 14 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46992 CRL.P No. 11324 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010515852026 The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police. 10. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.1187/2025 pending before the JMFC VI Court, Dakshina Kannada of Kankanady Town Police Station, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. iii. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68