- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7012 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VASU S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA, PIN CODE - 571 1802 ALSO, RESIDING AT RENUKAMBA ROAD CHANNARAYAPAGNA TOWN HASSAN - 573 116. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.N. RAJU, ADV.) AND: 1 . KUMARA @ SIME ENNE KUMARA S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT GANGAVADI VILLAGE HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA, PIN CODE - 571 802. 2 . STATE BY BINDIGANAVILE POLICE MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-2; Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR. TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA IN S.C.NO.23/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.115/2023 OF BINDIGANAVILE POLICE MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,323,302 OF IPC AND SEC.25 AND 27(3) OF ARMS ACT 1959 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in S.C.No.23/2024 arising out of Crime No.115/2023 registered by Bindiganavile Police Station, Mandya District, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 302 IPC and Sections 25 & 27(3) of Arms Act, 1959, wherein regular bail was granted to respondent no.1. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.115/2023 was registered by Bindiganavile Police Station, Mandya District, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 302 IPC and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against respondent no.1 herein based on the first information dated 04.11.2023 submitted by the petitioner herein who is the father of deceased Jaipal.C.V. During the course of investigation of the case, respondent no.1 herein was arrested on 04.11.2023 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case was completed and charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences against two persons. Respondent no.1 is arrayed as accused no.1 in the charge sheet. After committal, the case before the Trial Court was numbered as S.C.No.23/2024. Bail application filed by respondent no.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.23/2024 was allowed on 08.04.2024. Assailing the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the gravity of the offences committed by the accused/Respondent No.1 who is a rowdy sheeter. The Trial Court has failed to assign cogent reasons for granting bail to respondent no.1 and the parameters for consideration of the bail application of an accused in a heinous offence were not at all taken into consideration by the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 Court. He submits that CW-1 to CW-7 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question and CW-5 is the person who has now given surety to respondent no.1 before the Trial Court which would prima facie go to show that respondent No.1 is a person who can tamper material charge sheet witnesses. Respondent no.1 who is the brother of the petitioner has been threatening the petitioner and his family members. Respondent no.1 has not complied with the bail conditions. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 who has filed his statement of objections submits that though the Trial Court has not given sufficient reasons for granting regular bail to respondent no.1, that itself cannot be a ground to cancel the bail granted to him. Respondent no.1 has a good case on merits and this Court needs to re-appreciate the material available on record against respondent no.1 which would prima facie go to show that he is entitled for grant of regular bail. He submits that the grounds of arrest was not served on respondent no.1 and there is no compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in the present case. As on the date of alleged incident, respondent no.1 was not a rowdy sheeter and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 the rowdy sheeter was subsequently, opened against respondent no.1 has been stayed by this Court. Respondent no.1 has also suffered injuries in the incident in question which is not explained by the prosecution in the charge sheet. It is under these circumstances, a private complaint was filed by respondent no.1 after he was released on bail. It is only after such a private complaint was filed, the defacto complainant has thought it fit to file the present petition before this Court seeking cancellation of bail. Respondent no.1 has strictly complied with the bail conditions and he could not mark his attendance on 03.11.2024 before the Police Station for the reason that he was required to appear before this Court on 04.11.2024 in compliance of the non-bailable warrant issued against him. The defacto complainant and the police do not want respondent no.1-accused to effectively prosecute the private complaint filed by him and it is under these circumstances, the present petition is filed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned Addl. SPP submits that though initially a report was submitted by the Investigation Officer that respondent no.1 had not violated any bail conditions, during the course of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 hearing of this petition, it was found that the report submitted by the Investigation Officer about marking of attendance by respondent no.1-accused was incorrect, and therefore, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, had initiated inquiry against the concerned officer and his report dated 23.03.2025 would go to show that respondent no.1-accused had not marked his attendance on 03.11.2024 and thereby he had violated the bail conditions. He also submits that appropriate action has been taken against the concerned police officers who have cooperated with respondent no.1-accused to mark his attendance subsequently on 06.11.2024 and manipulate the attendance register. 7. The factors to be borne in mind while considering the application for regular bail are, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Respondent no.1 is a person with criminal antecedents and he was a rowdy sheeter for a period of nearly 10 years immediately prior to he committing the murder of his brother's son in the present case. There are eye-witnesses to the incident in question. CW-1 to CW-7 are the eye-witnesses who are all close relatives of respondent no.1 as well as the deceased. The relatives of deceased as well as respondent no.1-accused had pacified the parties while they were quarrelling and had locked respondent no.1-accused in a cow shed. Inspite of the same, accused had used the unlicensed gun which he had kept in the cow shed and shot the deceased dead. The deceased and the other relatives were on their way back when the accused shot the deceased from behind with the gun which he had kept in his cow shed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the manner in which the crime was committed and also the gravity of the offence. He also has failed to appreciate that respondent no.1- accused who is a person with criminal antecedents is likely to tamper with the material prosecution witnesses. It is brought to the notice of this Court that CW-5 who is one of the eye- witnesses in the present case has stood as surety to respondent no.1-accused after he was enlarged on bail in the present case which itself would prima facie go to show that respondent no.1-accused is a person who is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. None of the above referred parameters are considered by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the accused in a murder case. 9. In the case of JAYABEN V. TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA, (2022) 3 SCC 230, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 18 has observed as under: "18. Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that after the accused are released on bail by the impugned judgments and orders [Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 1915] passed by the High Court, more than two-and-a-half years have passed and there are no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 allegations of misuse of liberty and therefore, the bail may not be cancelled is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. As per the settled preposition of law, cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings. There are different considerations while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions, etc. and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing the accused on bail. Once, it is found that the order [Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 1915] passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled." 11. In KUMER SING VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN-2021 SCC OnLine SC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.18 to 20 has observed as under: "18. In the case of Mahipal (Supra) where the High Court released the accused on bail in a case for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and other offences recording the only contention put forth by the counsel for the accused and further recording that “taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing the opinion on merits of case, this Court deems fit just and proper to enlarge/release the accused on bail.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 19. While setting aside the order passed by the High Court granting bail, one of us Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under: 11. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 CrPC to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh5 Umesh Banerjee, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms: “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. … The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. 20. That thereafter this Court considered the principles that guide while assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail. This Court specifically observed and held that normally this Court does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting the bail to the accused. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. This Court further observed that the power of the appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for cancellation of bail. It is further observed that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was a proper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. It is further observed that the test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. Thereafter this Court considered the difference and distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate court granting bail in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under: 13. The principles that guide this Court in assessing the correctness of an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting bail were succinctly laid down by this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee6. In that case, the accused was facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Several bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court in turn allowed the bail application filed by the accused. Setting aside the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] of the High Court, D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, held: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v.) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. *** 10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.” 14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. 16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., the accused was granted bail by the High Court [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P.7,. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court surveyed the precedent on the principles that guide the grant of bail. Dipak Misra, J. “12. … It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court.” 17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non- application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 of the punishment. The order [Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 5197] of the High Court in the present case, insofar as it is relevant reads: “2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that, the deceased was driving his motorcycle, which got slipped on a sharp turn, due to which he received injuries on various parts of body including ante- mortem head injuries on account of which he died. Counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”" 12. In the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM V. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337, in paragraph 21 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 "21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. [Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] .] 22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner…" 13. In the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER - (2021) 6 SCC 230, in paragraph 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: ”39. Grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail—as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution—is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind. This Court observed : (SCC p. 527, paras 8-9) “8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order [Meer Hasan v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10985 of 2003, order dated 5-8-2003 (All)] shows complete non-application of - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. 9. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence.”" 14. In the case of KAMLA DEVI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER -(2022) 6 SCC 725 in paragraph Nos. 28 and 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "28. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”, is also apposite. 29. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High Court while granting bail. As noted from the afore cited judgments, it is not necessary for a court to give elaborate reasons while - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystallised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." 15. A reading of the order impugned passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.23/2024 would go to show that though the Trial Court has taken note of the contentions urged on both sides and also the citations on which reliance was placed by the learned Public Prosecutor in support of his contentions, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same, and on the other hand, the learned Trial Judge has observed that investigation is completed and the Investigation Officer has submitted charge sheet to the committal court, and therefore, it can be inferred - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 that custodial interrogation of the accused is completed and he is no more required for further investigation. The allegations against the accused is required to be proved in a full-fledged trial and keeping him in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, and accordingly proceeded to grant regular bail to respondent no.1/accused who is a history sheeter now alleged involved in committing the murder of his own brother's son. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2017)5 SCC 406 has held that merely for the reason that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, bail cannot be granted to an accused. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, it is observed as under: "12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. ……….” - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 17. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant parameters for considering the bail application of an accused who is charge-sheeted for committing a heinous offence and has proceeded to grant bail to him only for the reason that investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is filed. This approach of the learned Sessions Judge is totally perverse, unjustified and illegal, and therefore, the order impugned granting bail to respondent no.1/accused cannot be sustained. 18. In addition to the same, the material on record would also go to show that respondent no.1/accused has violated the bail conditions. The Sessions Court while granting regular bail to respondent no.1/accused had directed him to mark his attendance in the concerned police station every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the case. The report of the Director General & Inspector General of Police dated 23.03.2025 which was submitted by the learned Addl. Special Public Prosecutor in the present case would go to show that respondent no.1/accused has failed to mark his attendance before the police on 03.11.2024 and subsequently, he had managed in the police station to mark his attendance on - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 06.11.2024. The report also states that necessary action has been taken against the erring officers who had helped respondent no.1-accused to mark his attendance subsequently so as to show compliance of the bail conditions. 19. In addition to the same, after respondent no.1-accused was enlarged on bail, CW-5 who is one of the eye witnesses in the present case has stood as surety to the accused before the Trial Court, which would prima facie go to show that respondent no.1-accused is a person who can tamper the prosecution witnesses. The defacto complainant is the direct brother of the accused and the eye-witnesses are his close relatives. It is brought to the notice of this Court that accused has been threatening the eye witnesses after he was enlarged on bail. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the Trial Court granting regular bail to respondent no.1/accused is liable to be set aside not only for the reason that requisite parameters and the relevant materials which were on record were completely overlooked by the Sessions Court while - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16741 CRL.P No. 7012 of 2024 granting him bail, but also for the supervening adverse circumstances referred to above which warrants cancellation of his bail. Accordingly, the following order: 21. Petition is allowed. The order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in S.C.No.23/2024, granting regular bail to respondent no.1/accused is set aside, and respondent no.1/accused is directed to surrender within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is however made clear that the observations made above are all confined to examining the infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail to respondent no.1/accused and his conduct thereafter, and shall not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case. This order shall also not preclude respondent no.1/accused from applying afresh for bail at a later stage if any new circumstances are brought to light. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK