The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that labeling an individual as an accused without any substantive allegations or procedural grounding cannot justify arrest or denial of anticipatory bail. This order underscores the necessity of concrete material to support criminal liability, particularly under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar S/o K R Tomar, aged 52, resides in Delhi and is not named as an accused in any formal complaint, FIR, or charge sheet related to Crime No. 564/2025 registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru. Despite this, the investigating agency, during the course of investigation, referred to him as "Accused No. 3" in objections filed before the Trial Court, creating a credible apprehension of imminent arrest.
Key Facts
- The original complaint dated 08.10.2025 was filed by Rakesh Balan, Authorized Representative of M/s. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd., against Manu T.J. (Accused No. 1) and M/s. Brett Med Life Sciences Company (Accused No. 2)
- The allegations involve cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 316(4) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1, an employee, colluded with Accused No. 2, a distributor, to extend unauthorized credit, causing financial loss
- During investigation, the police discovered that Niraj Kumar, proprietor of Accused No. 2’s company and brother of the petitioner, transferred Rs. 1,40,00,000 to the petitioner’s bank account
- The petitioner has never been named in the complaint, FIR, or any statement recorded during investigation
- No charge sheet has been filed implicating the petitioner
- Accused No. 2 (Niraj Kumar) has already been granted bail by the Trial Court
Procedural History
- 08.10.2025: Crime No. 564/2025 registered at Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru
- Prior to 14.05.2026: Investigation ongoing; petitioner not named as accused in any document
- During investigation: Police, in objections filed before the Trial Court, referred to petitioner as "Accused No. 3" without any supporting material
- 14.05.2026: Criminal Petition No. 6294 of 2026 filed under Section 438 CrPC (also invoked under Section 482 BNSS) before the Karnataka High Court seeking anticipatory bail
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Counsel argued that the petitioner has no connection to the alleged offences beyond being the recipient of a fund transfer from his brother, who is already on bail
- No complaint, FIR, or charge sheet names the petitioner
- The label "Accused No. 3" is procedurally invalid and lacks any evidentiary basis
- Granting bail on grounds of parity with Accused No. 2 is justified
- The petitioner has no history of criminal conduct and is a settled resident of Delhi
For the Respondent
- The State did not file any written reply
- The High Court Government Pleader could not point to any material justifying the petitioner’s designation as Accused No. 3
- No evidence was presented to link the petitioner to the alleged conspiracy or financial misconduct
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 564/2025, subject to reasonable conditions, and requested that the designation as "Accused No. 3" be treated as legally unsustainable.
The Legal Issue
Can a person be subjected to the threat of arrest and denied anticipatory bail solely on the basis of being labeled "Accused No. 3" in police objections, without any complaint, FIR, or material evidence implicating him in the alleged offences under Sections 316(4) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle that Section 438 CrPC is designed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest where no prima facie case exists. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest cannot be automatic or based on suspicion alone. He argued that the transfer of funds, without more, does not establish criminal intent or participation in conspiracy. The fact that the co-accused (his brother) had already been granted bail reinforced the argument of parity and absence of differential treatment.
For the Respondent
The State, despite being served notice, remained absent. The Government Pleader conceded that no material had been placed on record to justify the petitioner’s inclusion as Accused No. 3. No counter-affidavit or evidentiary submission was made to rebut the petitioner’s claim of non-involvement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the case and found that the petitioner had been subjected to a legally untenable designation as "Accused No. 3" without any formal accusation or evidentiary foundation. The Court observed that the mere fact of a fund transfer from a relative, without any corroborating evidence of knowledge, intent, or participation in the alleged offences, cannot constitute a basis for arrest.
"The petitioner has not been named in the complaint, the FIR, or any statement recorded during investigation. The reference to him as Accused No. 3 in the police objections is devoid of any substantive material."
The Court further noted that the Trial Court had already granted bail to Accused No. 2, the petitioner’s brother, who was directly involved in the transaction. Denying bail to the petitioner on the same facts would violate the principle of parity and equal treatment under law. The Court held that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest was reasonable and founded on an arbitrary procedural act by the investigating agency.
The Court emphasized that Section 438 CrPC is a preventive provision meant to shield individuals from the trauma of arrest where no credible case exists. The absence of any charge sheet, the lack of any statement implicating the petitioner, and the State’s inability to justify his inclusion as an accused collectively established a clear case for anticipatory bail.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 564/2025, subject to the following conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with one local surety of like amount; (ii) appearance before the Investigation Officer within ten days of receiving a certified copy of this order; (iii) no tampering with prosecution witnesses; and (iv) no departure from the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission. The State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Accused Designation Without Formal Charges Is Legally Invalid
- Practitioners must challenge any police or prosecution attempt to label a person as "Accused No. X" without a formal complaint, FIR, or charge sheet
- Such designations, if used to justify arrest, are violative of Article 21 and Section 438 CrPC
- Courts must scrutinize the basis of such designations and reject them if unsupported by material
Parity in Bail Grants Must Be Enforced
- When co-accused are granted bail on similar facts, denial of bail to another accused without distinguishing grounds is arbitrary
- This judgment reinforces that bail decisions must be consistent across co-accused unless a compelling reason exists
- Lawyers should cite this case when opposing differential treatment in bail applications
Fund Transfers Alone Do Not Establish Criminal Liability
- Merely receiving money from a co-accused does not equate to participation in fraud or conspiracy
- Prosecution must establish mens rea, knowledge, and active involvement
- This judgment provides a strong precedent to resist speculative charges based on financial transactions alone
