Hdb Financial Services Limited v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 508 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, 2079/43 RAILWAY LINE, PIPELINE RPC LAYOUT, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. BHARATH B. POOJARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THANUSH S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CCB (EOW) SQUAD, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP)

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A) TO MODIFY THE CONDITION NO.1 IN ORDER DATED 12.05.2023 REGARDING THE SURETY HOLDER AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE, BEARING REG NO.KA-51-AD-2385 IN C.C NO.31922/2024 (PENDING BEFORE) 1ST ACMM, BENGALURU BY FURNISHING THE INDEMNITY BOND.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶2This petition is filed to relax the conditions imposed for release of interim custody of vehicle vide order dated 12.05.2023 in Crime No.4/2023, registered before the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶3The conditions imposed under the said order are as follows:

"1. Petitioner shall execute Indemnity bond for Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety for like sum.

¶2Petitioner shall not alienate the vehicles nor change it's identity in any manner, till disposal of the case.

¶3Petitioner shall produce above vehicle before this Court and I.O. as and when directed to do so.

¶4I.O. to take colour photos of above vehicles at the cost of petitioner and furnish the same to the court with final report."

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a financial institution, as such condition No.1 cannot be imposed directing the individual representing the institution to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. In addition, it is also submitted that condition No.2, which restrains the petitioner from alienating the vehicle, is also not required. In a case of this nature, if the vehicles are not sold, the value will depreciate by the time the case is completely disposed of.

¶5Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that, the condition No.1 would bind the

financial institution and not the individual employee representing the institution. Insofar as condition No.2 is concerned, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the said condition can be relaxed, subject to the undertaking made by the petitioner that it will not dispute the seizure and identity of the vehicle.

¶6This Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.

¶7Insofar as condition No.1 is concerned, it is about the execution of an indemnity bond by the petitioner. The petitioner is a financial institution. Merely because an individual employee of the financial institution executes the indemnity bond, it doesn't mean that the individual is personally bound by the said indemnity bond. The indemnity bond is to be executed on behalf of the financial institution and the same binds the financial institution. The bond can be executed against the assets of the financial institution, as such there is no need to relax

condition No.1, as long as the employee of the financial institution executes indemnity bond with due authorization by the financial institution.

¶8Insofar as condition No.2 is concerned, it is noticed that the Court has imposed a condition that vehicle should not be sold. The property in question is a vehicle, which is a depreciating asset. The trial may take its own time. If the petitioner is restrained from alienating the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings, the vehicle may lose its value.

¶9Under these circumstances, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not dispute the seizure as well as identity of the vehicle, the application can be allowed by relaxing the condition No.2. Hence, the following. ORDER

i. The petition is allowed in part;

ii. Condition No.2 imposed in the order dated

12.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.31922/2024 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, referred to above is relaxed.

iii. It is made clear that the employee of the petitioner-financial institution, shall execute the indemnity bond on behalf of the petitioner-institution with due authorization by petitioner.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5