- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6585 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR INDI @ CHANDU MAMA S/O SRI.SHARANABASAPPA INDI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT #27, SHANKESHWAR VILLA II CROSS, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA KARNATAKA – 586 108 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR, SR. ADV. AND SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRASANNA KUMAR P.,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED IN SPL.CC.NO.565/2021 BY THE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CITIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO CANCELLATION OF BAIL GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.16 IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.CC NO.565/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147,148,120(B), 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 U/S 25 R/W 3,5,3,29 OF THE ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82). Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.05.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.16 before this Court seeking regular bail in Spl. CC No.565/2021 arising out of RC No.17(S)/2019 of the respondent – CBI. 2. The petitioner was granted bail on 19.08.2021 by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent – CBI filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to both accused Nos.15 and 16 alleging that the accused persons have attempted to influence the prosecution witnesses to turn them hostile. Further, it is stated that the respondent had collected the call detail records (CDRs), mobile tower locations and CCTV footage from the hotel in Tumakuru etc. 3. The petitioner had filed a detailed objection to the said application denying all the allegations contending that there was no cogent and direct evidence to show that the petitioner had influenced or contacted any prosecution - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 witnesses. Mere collecting the CDRs would not be sufficient to presume that he had influenced or threatened the witnesses to turn hostile. Inspite of the resistance made by the petitioner, the Trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody. Hence, the petitioner seeking for regular bail. 4. Heard Sri.Shyam Sundar and Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of Smt.Vandana P.L., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI. 5. It is the submission of Sri.Shyam Sundar, learned Senior Counsel that the Sessions Court has committed a manifest error in canceling the bail of the petitioner while simultaneously protecting the interest of accused No.15 although similar allegations were made against them. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and he had maintained the sanctity of judicial process and he had never violated any condition of the bail and he was ready to face the trial and establish his innocence. If the order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 passed by the Trial Court is not set aside, great hardship would be caused to the petitioner as the Trial Court has cancelled the bail only on the ground that it is a more sensitive case and it is being watched by the respondent – CBI, which is not correct and proper. 6. It is further submitted that if the witnesses have been threatened by the petitioner, they would have lodged a complaint before the competent authority regarding the threat or coercion. In the absence of a complaint by the witnesses, considering the baseless allegations made by the respondent - CBI, the bail ought not to have been cancelled. Making such submissions, the learned Senior Counsel prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI vehemently contended that the petitioner after having been released on bail, was in continuous touch with the eyewitnesses. The CDRs would disclose that he had contacted the witnesses and he was influencing and coercing them in one or the other pretext to be turned as hostile. Consequently, on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 examination of witnesses, namely, CWs.56 and 57 have turned hostile. 8. It is further submitted that the filing of a perjury case against the said witnesses is pending and also some more witnesses are required to be examined. At this stage, it is not appropriate to grant bail not only in the interest of witnesses but also in the interest of public at large. Making such submissions, the learned Special Prosecutor prays to reject the petition. 9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer the conditions of which the present petitioner had been granted bail. The Trial Court vide its order dated 19.08.2021 imposed four conditions while granting the bail to the petitioner. In that conditions, the second condition is most appropriate to mention herein, which reads as under: “ii. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly get in touch with any of the witnesses nor shall he try to influence any such witnesses.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 6585 of 2025 10. When such being the position, the respondent – CBI has collected certain CDRs which discloses that petitioner was indirectly influencing the witnesses to become hostile. Moreover, the order passed by the Trial Court in canceling the bail appears to be appropriate and proper for the reason that violation of the conditions and also tampering or threatening the witnesses to be turned as hostile is necessarily regulated for the purpose of giving effect to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. 11. On overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court in canceling the bail is appropriate and proper. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said findings. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition stands rejected. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73