Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in Phone Conversation Case, Faults Sessions Court for Ignoring Custodial Interrogation Test
Justice R. Nataraj held that where a case turns on a telephone conversation, custodial interrogation is unnecessary and anticipatory bail cannot be refused on seriousness alone.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail on 26 May 2026 to Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, a 58-year-old resident of Ujire Village, Belthangady Taluk, who faced arrest in Crime No.21/2026 registered at the D.K. Women Police Station. The case arose from an alleged private telephone conversation in which the petitioner purportedly made remarks about the complainant's character and the caste origins of her children. Justice R. Nataraj, sitting singly, set aside the Sessions Court's refusal and held that because the entire case revolved around a telephone conversation, there was no justification for custodial interrogation — a consideration the Trial Court had failed to apply.
The Complaint and the FIR
On 13 April 2026, the complainant informed the D.K. Women Police Station that she had found her son disturbed. When she enquired, her son disclosed that he had received a forwarded message containing a conversation between one Mr. Prajwal and the petitioner.
In that conversation, the petitioner told Mr. Prajwal that he had seen a video and asked whether it related to Mr. Prajwal's father. The petitioner then purportedly asked Mr. Prajwal whether the complainant had slept with Veerendra Hegde. The petitioner also allegedly stated that the complainant's son and others were not born to the Shetty family but to Jains.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner had thereby linked her to Veerendra Hegde and his brothers, that this outraged her modesty, and that it generated enmity between groups. A case was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 196(1), 352, 351(2), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Sessions Court Refusal and the Petitioner's Case Before the High Court
The petitioner moved the District Court for anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.348/2026. By an order dated 6 May 2026, the District Court dismissed the application, primarily on the ground that the offences alleged were serious in nature and that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Akshatha Shetty K., argued that the petitioner had not attributed any defamatory or indecent statements to the complainant directly, and that he was referring to a play staged by Mr. Prajwal. She contended that none of the offences alleged carried the punishment of death or life imprisonment, and that the petitioner had been targeted because he had tried to expose the Hegde family.
The Additional State Public Prosecutor, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, appearing for the State, submitted that the allegations were severe, that they outraged the complainant's modesty, and that the remarks had incited hatred amongst groups. She argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to take the investigation to its logical end.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Nataraj identified the correct legal frame for the Sessions Court's inquiry. Where offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the only considerations that should weigh are whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether granting anticipatory bail would embolden the petitioner to flee from justice.
The court then applied those considerations to the facts. The case, in its entirety, revolved around a telephone conversation. On that basis, Justice Nataraj held that there was no need for custodial interrogation. The petitioner's voice sample for forensic analysis was, however, required — and the court held that this could be secured through conditions attached to the bail order rather than through arrest and custody.
The judgment observed that the Trial Court “must have considered the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail from this perspective.” The Sessions Court's failure to do so was the basis on which the High Court intervened.
Conditions Imposed
Justice Nataraj allowed the petition and directed the respondent to release the petitioner upon arrest in Crime No.21/2026, subject to five conditions.
The petitioner must execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with a solvent surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He must make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required and must co-operate with the investigation by providing his voice sample.
He must not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing facts to the court or to any police officer, or tamper with evidence. He must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. He must not commit any similar offences.
The court also made clear that in the event of violation of any of these conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Order
Criminal Petition No. 7376 of 2026 was allowed. The petitioner, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, was granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.21/2026 registered at D.K. Women Police Station for offences under Sections 196(1), 352, 351(2), and 79 of the BNS, subject to the conditions set out above.