- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11938 CRL.P No. 177 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 177 OF 2024 (439(2)(Cr.PC) / 483(3)(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ABHILASH T.M, S/O MANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADDDUR POLICE , MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H.C.K, BANGALORE - 01.) 2. SRI. MUTTHESHA T.P, S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARISH BHANDARY P, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11938 CRL.P No. 177 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 (ACCUSED NO.2) BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.P.NO.12832/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ACCUSED NO.3) TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER This petition is preferred by the defacto complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.3 by this Court in Crl.P.No.12832/2023. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner suppressed the fact before this Court that the eye witnesses namely PWs.1 to 4, have supported the case of prosecution. Drawing the attention of the Court to para-7 of the order, he contended that petitioner has only submitted to the Court that, PWs.5 and 6 being the eye witnesses have turned hostile, thereby suppressing that other eye witnesses namely PWs.1 to 4 have supported the case of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11938 CRL.P No. 177 of 2024 prosecution. He contended that if it was brought to the notice of the Court that the said eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case, this Court would not have enlarged the petitioner on bail. 3. A perusal of para-7 of the bail order passed in Crl.P.No.12832/2023, would only indicate that the petitioner produced the copy of depositions of PWs.5 and 6 and as per the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses amongst them Nasir and Borappa being the eye witnesses who were present at the time of incident, completely turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported the case of prosecution. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that in fact there was no suppression of fact, but a contention was raised that none of the prosecution witnesses has specifically supported the prosecution case and it is nowhere stated that PWs.1 to 4 who are also eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 5. The order granting bail to respondent No.2/accused No.3 was passed on 20.12.2023. This Court has taken into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11938 CRL.P No. 177 of 2024 consideration that even other accused persons were also enlarged on bail and therefore, observing that the accused was entitled for bail on the ground of parity, enlarged him on bail by imposing conditions. 6. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to accused No.4 by name Shiva @ Shivu @ Shivaraju. T. D., taking note of the fact that all the eye witnesses are examined and the said accused has been in incarceration for more than five years and nine months. 7. It is not in dispute that there are 7 accused in this case and all of them are enlarged on bail. No allegations are made that respondent No.2/accused No.3 has misused the liberty granted to him or violated the bail conditions. 8. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11