The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to a government school warden accused in a case involving alleged misappropriation of food grains supplied to a residential school, holding that the apprehensions of the prosecution could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.
- Case Title: Sampath Kumar Nayak v. State of Karnataka
- Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- Judge: Justice Geetha K.B.
- Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 100178 of 2026
- Statutes Involved: Sections 316(2) and 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Petition Seeking Anticipatory Bail
The petition before the High Court was filed by Sampath Kumar Nayak, a 35-year-old government employee working as a warden, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The relief was sought in connection with Crime No. 57/2025 registered at Gudageri Police Station for offences under Sections 316(2) and 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The petitioner had earlier approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court seeking similar relief. However, his request for anticipatory bail was rejected by an order dated 9 January 2026. Following the rejection, he approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest.
The petitioner maintained that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that he was a permanent government employee and therefore there was no likelihood of absconding if bail was granted.
Allegations Regarding Missing Food Grain Supplies
The case arose from allegations related to the supply of food grains to a Morarji Desai Residential School located within the jurisdiction of Mattigatti Village in Kundagol Taluk.
According to the prosecution’s version, the Tahsildar of Kundagol had issued an order on 1 December 2025 directing the release of food grains to the school. The sanctioned allocation included 120 quintals of rice (240 bags) and 60 quintals of wheat (120 bags). These food grains were reportedly transported to the school on 9 December 2025.
However, subsequent inspection by authorities revealed discrepancies in the stored supplies. A report submitted by the Tahsildar indicated that when the school premises were inspected on 12 December 2025, only 162 bags of rice were found in the storeroom. This meant that 78 bags of rice were missing.
The report further stated that one of the consignments transported in a vehicle bearing registration number KA-25/AB-1105, which allegedly carried 80 bags of rice, had not been received in the school’s storeroom. Additionally, no documentation was produced to demonstrate that the said consignment had been received or stored.
Based on this report, a first information report was lodged on 20 December 2025 by the District Officer, Backward Classes, Dharwad, leading to the registration of Crime No. 57/2025 at Gudageri Police Station.
The prosecution alleged that the principal of the school (accused No.1) and the warden (accused No.2, the present petitioner) had collected the food grains from the government store at Kundagol under specific billing records and were responsible for the missing stock.
Petitioner’s Defence
The petitioner challenged the allegations and argued that he had no responsibility for the alleged disappearance of the food grain bags.
One of the primary grounds raised by the petitioner was that he had been on leave during the relevant period. According to him, he had taken leave from 10 December to 14 December 2025, which included the date on which the inspection was conducted by authorities.
The petitioner also produced copies of his leave applications to substantiate his claim. He argued that because he was on leave, he was not in charge of the storeroom during the relevant period when the inspection was conducted.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, according to government circulars, Thursday is a weekly holiday for wardens. Therefore, the petitioner claimed he had not been in charge of the storeroom during the period between 10 December and 14 December.
The defence emphasized that the alleged delivery of food grains occurred on 9 December 2025, while the inspection revealing the shortage took place on 12 December 2025. Thus, according to the petitioner, there was insufficient basis to attribute criminal liability to him.
State’s Objections to Bail
The State opposed the anticipatory bail application through the High Court Government Pleader.
The prosecution contended that the investigation was still ongoing and that the offences alleged were non-bailable in nature. It argued that if anticipatory bail were granted, the petitioner might:
- threaten prosecution witnesses,
- repeat similar offences, or
- obstruct the course of investigation and trial.
The State also raised concerns that the petitioner might abscond if released on bail.
Given the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the State urged the Court to reject the bail petition.
Court’s Analysis of the Case
After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the records placed before it, the High Court framed the central question for determination: whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
The Court noted that the offences alleged against the petitioner carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment with fine. However, it also observed that the offences were triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
A significant factor considered by the Court was that the petitioner had not been arrested despite the FIR being registered on 20 December 2025.
The Court also took note of the documents produced during the hearing which indicated that no notice had been issued to the petitioner under Section 35 of the BNSS requiring him to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation or inquiry.
The judgment observed that investigation records revealed that the rice bags transported in the vehicle bearing registration number KA-25/AB-1105 were not received in the storeroom. However, the Court did not find sufficient grounds at this stage to deny anticipatory bail.
Court’s Observations
Justice Geetha K.B. acknowledged that the offences alleged were serious but emphasized that the investigation concerns raised by the prosecution could be addressed through appropriate conditions imposed while granting bail.
The Court observed:
“Even though the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature, they are triable by the learned Magistrate.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution could be adequately safeguarded by imposing suitable bail conditions.
High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail
Based on its assessment, the High Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest in Crime No. 57/2025, the petitioner must be released on bail subject to several conditions. These included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation.
The Court also directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer whenever required during reasonable hours and to appear before the concerned Magistrate within 30 days to execute the bail bond.
Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the court regularly if a charge sheet is filed, and to produce identity and address proof before the Magistrate.
The Court made it clear that violation of any of the imposed conditions would automatically result in cancellation of the bail bond.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
