Sri Sahasrarjun Ghanshyam Khoday vs State Of Karnataka
- Neutral2025:KHC:30984
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where investigation is complete, charge sheets have been filed, the offences charged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the accused are partners with substantial financial stake in the business that is the subject of the allegations, the incriminating evidence consists primarily of documentary materials already in the possession of the complainant and the company, the witnesses are employees and retailers who are within the sphere of influence of the complainant who is more powerful than the accused, and the risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding can be adequately mitigated through stringent bail conditions, bail may be granted notwithstanding that the alleged offences involve large sums and allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation, provided such conditions address the risks identified by the prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
-1- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6677 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 6733/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI K P GHANSHYAM S/O LATE K. L. A. PADMANABHASA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 9 AND 9/1, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL Digitally KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) signed by REKHA R AND: Location: High Court of 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Karnataka BY SHESHADRIPURAM P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001
2. SRI. BRIJMOHAN K. S. S/O K. L. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A M/S. KHODAY RCA INDUSTRIES, -2- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
(KHODAY ESWARASA & SONS) NO. 11, RACE COURSE ROAD, OPP. TO RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DTD: 22.05.2025)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED BY 483 OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NI.8/2021 REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM P.S FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21893/2022 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
IN CRL.P NO. 6677/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI SAHASRARJUN GHANSHYAM KHODAY S/O K.P GHANSHYAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/1, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.LAKSHMI KANTH.G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHESHADRIPURAM P. S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI. BRIJMOHAN K. S. S/O K. L. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A. M/S. KHODAY RCA INDUSTRIES, (KHODAY ESWARASA AND SONS) NO. 11, RACE COURSE ROAD, OPP. TO RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560009 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.6 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.8/2021 REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM P.S., FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CJM AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21893/2022.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI -4- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
COMMON ORDER
These two petitions are filed under the Section 439
of the code of criminal procedure seeking bail in
C.C.No.21893/2022, on the file of III ACMM, Bengaluru,
arising out of Cr.No.8/2021 of Sheshadripuram PS for the
offences punishable and Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 409,
420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. While Crl.P.No.6733/2025 is filed by accused
No.1, Crl.P.No.6677/2025 is filed by accused No.6, who is
no other than the son of accused No.1.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
4. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 and 6
have contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the partners
of Khoday Eshwarsa and sons. A deed of reconstitution of
partnership dated 31.05.2017 was executed in Khoday RCA -5- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
Industries, operating at Building No.11, Opposite to
Railway Division Office, Race Course Road, Bangalore City.
Accused Nos.1 and 2, CWs-1 to 6 are the partners among
others. The other partners of the company had given
accused No.2 the authority to conduct the business relating
to Khoday RCA Industries by opening current account
number 0402201052375, at Canara Bank, Avenue Road
branch. Similarly, accused No.1 holds the responsibility
relating to the production, sale, and purchase of the units
and accused No.6, hold the responsibility for finance.
Accordingly, accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 are engaged in the
business of manufacturing liquor products in Khoday RCA
Industries and selling them through KSBCL.
5. Accused No.3 is the owner of Devagiri Bulk
Carriers and Devagiri Enterprises, which was supplying
spirit on contract basis to Khoday India Ltd and Khoday
RCA Industries company belonging to M/s Khoday
Eswarasa and Sons. Accused No.4 is employed as Manager -6- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
since 30.03.1994 at Khoday RCA industries. Accused No.5
is the mother of accused No.3. They are the
owner/Proprietor of a company named Sri.Surabhi
Enterprises, which according to the prosecution, created
with intention of making illegal money.
6. It is alleged that accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 with an
intention of deceiving the partners of Khoday RCA
Industries i.e, CWs-1 to 6 and three other partners, by
betraying the trust of the other partners entered into a
conspiracy to earn illegal money. Accused No.1 entered
into an IMFL Promotional Agreement dated 19.07.2017
with accused No.3 to increase the sale of products like XXX
rum, sovereign pure brandy, Hercules Old mature 3X Rama
and similar other products of Khoday RCA industries
through KSBCL depot. However, accused No.3 on the
instructions of accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6, with the help of
CW-16 and using his mother's (accused No.5's) documents
got GST registered under the name of Surabhi Enterprises -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
on 03.08.2017. In order to manage the financial affairs of
the said Surabhi Enterprises, the following accounts were
opened.
i. Corporation Bank, Salagame Road, Hassan
bearing A/c No.:510101003283590
ii. ICICI Bank, Hassan bearing A/c
No:105905015862
iii. Karnataka Gramin Bank, Hassan bearing A/c
No:12062110000157
6.1 It is further alleged that accused Nos.3 and 5 have
not employed any workers nor carrying out any marketing
promotion of liquor products of Khoday RCA Industries in
any part of Karnataka and the same is registered just for
name sake and is a company without registered office.
6.2 It is alleged that though Sri. Surabhi Enterprises
was in the name of accused No.5, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6
with an intention to make illegal gain, on various dates
between 19.08.2017 to 07.08.2020, have a created invoice
summaries, debit note, invoice, debit note (Incentive), -8- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
Invoice debit note (TA and DA), Employees invoice, vehicle
and transportation expenses, bills and other fake invoices
and created documents bearing seal of accused No.3's
signature and got illegally transferred a sum of Rs.17.73
Crores from account No:40220105376 to the above
referred three different accounts of Sri.Surabhi Enterprises.
Out of the said amount, 20% was given to accused Nos.3
and 5 and on various dates, 80% was self drawn by
accused No.3 upon the directions of accused No.1 and the
same was received by accused No.1 through accused No.4
and thereby they have breached the trust of their partners
viz, CWs-1 to 6 and other partners.
7. Accused No.1 and 6 are in custody since the date
of their arrest i.e., from 26.01.2025 4.30 p.m at Delhi.
They filed bail application on 27.01.2025 before the III
Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.21893/2022. The same came to be rejected on
22.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, they approached -9- NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Court in
Crl.Misc.No.1941 and Crl.Misc.1942/2025. They were
rejected on 08.04.2025.
8. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail application
filed by them, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition
on the following among other:
GROUNDS
i. Accused Nos.1 and 6 have not at all committed the
alleged offences and the same is just a fabricated and
concocted story to harass them and wreck vengeance and
rope in them in a non-bailable offence. The alleged offence
has taken place in between June 2017 to August 2020.
There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint without any
explanation. As a counter blast to the complaint filed by
accused No.2, the father of accused No.1, which was
registered in Cr.No.26/2021, this complaint is filed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
ii. Respondent No.2 Brijmohan K.S, is no other than
the cousin of accused No.1. There is civil dispute between
the parties and suit for partition is pending. To take
advantage in the civil suit, it is being given criminal colour.
The respondent police hand in glow with respondent No.2
has registered the case to pressurize the accused persons
to settle the matter and to take unfair advantage. More
than 15 civil disputes are pending between the accused
No.1 and respondent No.2 before multiple forums,
including the Supreme Court. There are no material to
attract the provisions for which it is filed.
iii. In the present case, the amount in dispute is
Rs.17.73 Crores. The dispute revolve around members of
the family and the State is not in anyway affected. The sole
intention of respondent No.2 is to keep accused Nos.1 and
6 behind the bar due to the family enimity. The whole
dispute relates to a partnership firm. The parties to the
present dispute belongs to the same family and are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
cousins. In fact, during the proceedings in
Spl(Crl)No.5391/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
suggested the parties to sit across and settle the matter.
The entire case is based on documentary evidence like
books of account and ledgers. Accused No.1 is suffering
from ill health, including heart ailment. Already
investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and
therefore there is no impediment to grand bail. The charge
sheet consists of 17 volumes, 3847 pages and 110
witnesses. It may take very long to conclude the trial. No
purpose would serve by keeping the accused Nos.1 and 6
in custody. They are law abiding citizens and ready to
abide by any conditions that may be imposed and hence
the petition.
9. In support of his arguments, learned Senior
counsel representing accused Nos.1 and 6 has relied upon
the following decisions:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
(i) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (Sanjay Chandra)1
(ii) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Arnab Manoranjan Gowsami)2
(iii) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (Satender Kumar Antil)3
(iv) Manish Sisodia Vs. ED (Manish Sisodia)4
(v) Radheyshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (Radheyshyam Sharma)5
(vi) Musheer Alam Vs. State of U.P (Musheer Alam)6
(vii) Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra (Velji Raghavji Patel)7
(viii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd & Ors Vs. State of UP (Delhi Race Club)8
(ix) Doraiswamy Vs. State of Madras 9 (Doraiswamy)
(x) Sowmya Parameswaran Vs. A.A.Shahul Hameed (Sowmya Parameswaran )10
(xi) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (Prabir Purkayastha)11
1 (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 (2021) 2 SCC 427 3 (2022) 10 SCC 51 4 (2024) SCC Online SC 1920 5 SLP Crl.No.3838/2025 6 2025 SCC Online SC 116 7 1964 SCC Online SC 185 8 (2024) 10 SCC 690 9 Crl.P.No.10969/2017 Dt:25.04.2019 10 Crl.P.No.922/2022 Dt:23.08.2022 11 (2024) 8 SCC 254
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
(xii) N.V.Subba Rao Kesavarapu Vs. T.Yeshwanth Rao (N.V.Subba Rao Kesavarapu)12
(xiii) Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha Vs. the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court and Anr. (Shekhar Prasad Mahto)13
(xiv) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (Satender Kumar Antil)14
(xv) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
(Vihaan Kumar)15
(xvi) Kasireddy Upendra Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (Kasireddy Upendra Reddy)16
10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing
respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 State would submit that
respondent No.2/complainant is the partner of M/s Khoday
Eshwarsa and sons operating under the trade name Khoday
RCA Industries. It is into the business of manufacturing
Indian made foreign liquor since about 60 years. Khoday
RCA Industries is the license holder. Accused No.2 along
12 Crl.P.No.1713/2022 Dt:30.04.2025 13 W.P(Crl)No.55/2025 Dt:07.02.2025 14 (2022) 10 SCC 51 15 (2025) 5 SCC 799 16 2025 SCC Online 1228
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
with father of complainant K.L.Swamy are among the other
Directors and authorized signatories to operate the bank
accounts including Canara Bank, Avenue Road Branch A/c
No.0402201052375. While business operations of Khoday
RCA Industries is managed by 11 partners, accused Nos.1
and 2 are primarily entrusted with the day-to-day
operations and general administration of the business,
including manufacture, marketing, sales, collections and
finances. They are responsible for identifying and release of
payments to various service providers and suppliers of raw
materials.
10.1 Accused No.1 K.P.Ghanasham was entrusted to
take decisions in respect of every single payment to be
made for Khoday RCA Industries and approve or
disapprove the same. His father accused No.2
K.L.A.Padmanabhasa was authorized to release payments.
During August 2020, several complaints were received
regarding non supply of products. Even though since
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
January 2017 upto August 2020, a sum of Rs.17.73 Crores
is shown as expenditure towards promotional and
marketing activities, as per invoices raised by one
Sri.Surabhi Enterprises, claiming TA and DA, expenses and
vendor/supplier incentives, it was found that the bills had
no signature except a stamp and there were no supporting
documents, details of the sale executives, etc. It was
evident that there was a major fraud played by Sri.Surabhi
Enterprises through accused No.3 Dharmendra and others.
The bills approved by accused No.1 K.P.Ghanamsham on
the face of it looked false and fabricated. On the basis of
such documents, the payments were made by accused
No.2 K.L.A.Padmanabhasa.
10.2 Accused No.4 Ramachandra Singri, who is
working as Manager is the main co-ordinator for all the
transactions with Sri.Surabhi Enterprises and accused No.3
Dharmendra. A transaction audit reveal that there were
huge irregularities to the tune of Rs.17.73 Crores. The
documents are fabricated. No promotional activities were
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
held. The documents were created to siphon of and
misappropriate funds from the firm. Feed back from the
500 retailers confirmed that there are no promotional and
marketing activities since 4 years. Sri.Surabhi Enterprises
is not having an office and it is only a place of residence.
Accused No.3 Dharmendra is only a transporter of spirit
who operates few tankers including those of the firm in the
name and style of Devagiri Enterprises and Devagiri Bulk
and Carriers. After the fraud was deducted in September
2020 and enquiries were made, the accused have stopped
raising bills. All the accused have conspired to
misappropriate and commit fraud and caused loss of
Rs.17.73 Crores to the firm and other partners and made
unlawful gain.
10.3 In this regard complaint is filed. Based on the
same, case is registered and investigation is taken up.
After detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. Since the
investigating officer failed to conduct proper investigation
by arresting the accused persons, petitions were filed for a
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
direction to conduct further investigation. As per the
directions given by this Court, accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were
arrested and based on the further investigation, additional
charge sheet is filed. The allegations made are very grave.
In the event of granting of bail, there is likelihood of
petitioners threatening and tampering the witnesses and
pray to dismiss the petitions.
11. In support of his arguments learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar (Amit Kumar)17
(ii) Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy)18
(iii) Satyendrer Kumar Jain Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Satyender Kumar Jain)19
(iv) Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director
(Tarun Kumar)20
(v) State of UP Vs. Gayathri Prasad Prajapati (Gayathri Prasad Prajapati)21 17 (2017) 13 SCC 751 18 (2024) 6 SCC 715 19 2023 SCC Online SC 1486 20 (2022) 10 SCC 51
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. Heard arguments of the learned Senior counsel
representing accused Nos.1 and 6 as well as respondent
No.2/defacto complainant. Also heard learned High Court
Government Pleader representing the State and perused
the record.
13. The undisputed facts are that respondent No.2
and accused Nos.1 and 6 are members of the same family.
They are the partners of M/s Khoday Eshwarasa and Sons,
operating under the trade name Khoday RCA Industries
('KRCAI' for short). The firm is in the business of
manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL)
since about 60 years. KRCAI is the excise license holder.
Since the year 2002 this unit is lease to Khoday India Ltd
(KIL) which is the flagship company of Khoday group.
14. It is also not in dispute that KIL being the
flagship company of Khoday group, is into several other
21 (2022) 15 SCC 515
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
businesses, while distilleries is its core business. The
finances of all the business divisions are managed under
this flagship company. Accused No.2 K.L.A. Padmanabhasa
along with K.L.Swamy, the father of respondent No.2 are
among the other Directors in the company who are
authorized signatories to operate the Bank accounts
including A/c No.0402201052375 of Canara Bank, Avenue
Road branch, Bengaluru, which is stated to have been
closed after the fraud came to light.
15. It is also not in dispute that while the business
operations of KRCAI is managed by all the 11 partners,
accused No.2 K.L.A Padmanabhasa and his son accused
No.1 K.P.Ghanasham were primarily entrusted with day-to-
day operations and general administration of the business,
including manufacturing, marketing, sales, collections and
finance. They were responsible for identifying and release
of payments to various service providers and suppliers of
raw material. Accused No.1 was entrusted to take decisions
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
in respect of every single payment made for KRCAI and
approve or disapprove the same and accused No.2 K.L.A
Padmanabhasa was authorized to release the payments.
16. It is alleged that in the month of August 2020,
several complaints were received from the retailers
regarding non supply of the products and no promotional
activities. However, it was found that in all a sum of
Rs.17.73 Crores were spent towards promotional and
marketing activities, as per the invoices raised by
Sri.Surabhi Enterprises, claiming commission, TA and DA
expenses and vendor/supplier incentives. These bills were
not signed and not supported by any documents.
17. It is further alleged that a major fraud is
committed by Sri.Surabhi Enterprises through accused
No.3 Dharmendra and the said bills were approved by
accused No.1 Ghanasham without any supporting
documents and payments were approved by accused No.2
K.L.A Padmanabhasa and accused No.4 Ramachandra
Singri was the Manager. A transaction audit was initiated. A
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
document called as IMFL promotional agreement purported
to have been entered into between KRCAI represented by
accused No.1 Ghanasham as partner Sri.Surabhi
Enterprises represented by accused No.3 Dharmendra as
an authorized representative. However, no promotional
activities were held. Only based on fabricated documents,
amounts were drawn. There is also no office of Sri.Surabhi
Enterprises. Accused No.3 Dharmendra is only a
transporter of spirit who operates few tankers, including for
the firm, through entity known as Devagiri Enterprises and
Devagiri Bulk Carriers. Suspecting fraud and irregularities
respondent No.2 filed the complaint, it was registered in
Cr.No.8/2021 against accused Nos.1 to 5. After detailed
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 465,
468, 471, 420 and 201 r/w Section 34 IPC.
18. After conducting further investigation, the
concerned police have filed additional charge sheet
including the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
19. It is pertinent to note that at the end of the
charge sheet, a note is made by the investigating officer
(Sri.Chandan Kumar N, Assistant Commissioner of Police)
to the effect that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 are absconding
and after their arrest and recovery of documents and
instruments for preparing the fake documents, additional
charge sheet would be filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
20. Before going to the discussion as to whether
accused Nos.1 and 6 are entitled for bail, it is necessary to
refer to some of the proceedings held before various
Courts.
(i) On 12.07.2021, in Crl.P.No.2493/2021, Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the petition filed
by accused No.1 Ghanasham for anticipatory bail.
(ii) In W.P.No.7294/2021, respondent No.2/
complainant approached this Court for a direction to the
Government to constitute a special team of investigating
officers to conduct further investigation and take steps to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
arrest the accused persons and to recover incriminating
material. When it came up for orders, a submission was
made by learned High Court Government Pleader that as
per the request of respondent No.2 to the Commissioner of
Police, the investigating officer is changed and in the light
of the said submission, on 17.08.2021, the said petition
came to be disposed of with a direction to the Government
to consider the representation of respondent No.2 to see
that the investigation is conducted fairly and properly.
(iii) Respondent No.2/complainant filed Civil
Contempt Petition No.902/2021, alleging willful
disobedience of directions given in W.P.No.7294/2021
dated 17.08.2021. The contempt proceedings were
dropped on 17.02.2022 after making an observation that
the new investigating officer has taken charge and
submitted action taken report even before the orders were
passed in W.P.No.7294/2021.
(iv) The respondent No.2/complainant also filed
W.P.No.16631/2022 against State Government and other
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
officials as well as accused No.1 Ghanasham, with a prayer
for direction to the concerned police officials to execute
non-bailable warrant against accused No.1 Ghanasham. In
turn accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 filed W.P.No.16991/2022 to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in
Cr.No.8/2021. By a common order dated 10.01.2025, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petition filed by
respondent No.2 and dismissed the petition filed by
accused Nos.1, 2 and 6.
(v) Accused Nos.1 and 6 approached this Court in
Crl.P.No.13878/2024 for anticipatory bail. Vide order dated
25.01.2025, the said petitions came to be dismissed.
(vi) Vide order dated 22.02.2025, the trial Court has
rejected the regular bail applications filed by accused No.1
Ghanasham and accused No.6 Sahasrarjuna.
(vii) In Crl.Misc.1941/2025, vide order dated
08.04.2025, the Sessions Court has rejected the bail
application filed by accused No.1 Ghanasham.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
(viii) Against the said order accused approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl)No.4790/2025. It came
to be dismissed on the ground that already accused are
arrested and as such the petition has become infructuous.
21. In the meanwhile, accused No.2 who was aged
82 years died.
22. Through the present petitions, accused Nos.1 and
6 are seeking regular bail, by contending that the
investigation is completed and charge sheet and additional
charge sheet are filed. No longer their custodial presence is
required. They would undertake to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed.
23. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 that
petitioners are highly influential. The maximum punishment
that could be imposed for the offence under Section 409
IPC is imprisonment for life. In the event of granting bail,
petitioners may threaten or tamper with the witnesses and
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
also abscond and thereby protract the proceedings and
pray to reject the petitions.
24. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of
petitioners that in fact, during investigation, the petitioners
and other accused appeared before the investigating officer
and cooperated in the entire investigation. Since their
presence was not required, they were not arrested, but in
the charge sheet instead of stating that they are not
arrested, it is shown that they are absconding.
25. At the outset it is relevant to note that accused
Nos.1 and 2, CWs-1 to 6 are partners of Khoday Eshwarasa
and Sons. Accused No.6 Sahasrarjuna is the son of accused
No.1 Ghanasham. As rightly submitted by the learned
Senior counsel representing the petitioners, in their
capacity as the partners, petitioners are also owners of the
properties and business of the partnership firm and entitled
for a share the profits and losses. If at all they are guilty of
misappropriation of Rs.17.73 Crores as alleged in the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
charge sheet, the said amount is liable to be adjusted as
against the profits which they are entitled. Of course there
is element of criminality attached to the alleged action
taken by them, which would be taken care by the trial
Court.
26. At the same time, it is also relevant to note that
even before respondent No.2 choose to file the complaint,
accused No.1 Ghanasham has filed a complaint on
05.02.2021, in Cr.No.26/2021 of Upparpet P.S against
respondent No.2 Brijmohan, his two brothers and father. It
is alleged that the accused persons have entered into a
joint development agreement with Prestige Knotting Hills
Company for development and construction of Flats in land
measuring 36 acres, including in Sy.No.31/2 (old No.31)
and other survey numbers and also land situated at
Konanakunta belonging to the company/partnership on
behalf of all the partners, with an understanding that the
proceeds would be shared amongst the partners. However,
out of 850 Flats, they have sold 500 Flats and failed to pay
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
Rs.1000 Crores towards the share of accused No.1
Ghanasham. On 02.02.2021, at 9.30 a.m, when accused
No.1 Ghanasham, his father K.L.A. Padmanabhasa, wife
Jayalakshmi @ Neeta and son accused No.6 Sahasrarjuna
went to the house of respondent No.2 and others to speak
regarding the said dispute, they were abused and threat
was given to their life.
27. Based on this complaint, the concerned police
have registered a case in Cr.No.26/2021. However, later
they have filed 'B' report on the said complaint.
28. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 has filed
private complaint in PCR.No.6701/2021. It is referred to
the concerned police i.e., Commercial Street PS for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and registered
in Cr.No.46/2021.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
29. Suit for partition in O.S.No.2035/2019 and
O.S.No.4709/2019 are pending.
30. Thus, basically the dispute is between the family
members who are running a business in the name and
style of KRCAI. It appears together they were facing the
entire world and now after falling out, they are against
each other. Though the offences alleged are non-bailable,
they are not exclusively punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and as such there is no impediment
to grant bail, especially when the investigation is completed
charge sheet and additional charge sheet are filed. The
nature of allegations made against the accused persons are
such that the entire evidence against them is available with
respondent No.2 and the company and the witnesses are
no other than their employees and also the retailers.
31. It is the apprehension of prosecution and
respondent No.2 that the petitioners are very powerful and
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
they may tamper with the witnesses. At the same time,
respondent No.2 is far more powerful and he would
certainly balance the pressure that may be exerted by the
accused persons to influence the witnesses, especially
when they are the employees and sellers of the liquor
manufactured by the company. The fact that there is
possibility of the petitioners threatening or tampering with
the witnesses is not a justification for refusing bail to them.
At the same time, petitioners are having heavy stake in the
business run by the company. Such being the case, there is
no possibility of they absconding. The apprehension of the
prosecution that petitioners may threaten or tamper with
the witnesses and also abscond may be over come by
imposing stringent conditions.
32. In the result, the petitions succeed and
accordingly, the following:
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
Crl.P.No.6733/2025 and Crl.P.No.6677/2025 are
allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 are released
on bail with the following:
CONDITIONS
(i) Accused Nos.1 and 6 shall execute personal
bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) each, with two sureties each
for the like sum.
(ii) They shall not threaten or tamper with the
witnesses either directly or indirectly nor
shall they abscond.
(iii) They shall not leave the country without
the permission of the trial Court.
(iv) They shall furnish their residential address
proof and shall inform the trial Court, if
there is any change in the address.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30984 CRL.P No. 6733 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 6677 of 2025
HC-KAR
(v) They shall not indulge in any criminal
activities.
(vi) They shall be regular in attending the Court
proceedings.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- Sri K P Ghanshyam vs State Of Karnataka11 August 2025
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free