- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2788 CRL.P No. 9713 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9713 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI SANTHOSH THAZHATHU S/O DR. MATHEW THAZHATHU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT VILLA NO.9, CHAITHANYA RAKUEN, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD, NEAR HOPE FARM JUNCTION, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR FOR SRI SUDHINDRA MURTHY V., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VARTHUR PS, MARATHALLI CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF BUILDING, DR.AMBEKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. REV. FR. MATHEW PAUL VATTAMATTAM, S/O LATE PAILY VATTAMATTAM, AGED 64 YEARS, R/A KALATHOOR, KURVILANGAD POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA -686633 PRESENTLY AT SUPERIOR GENERAL OF CLARETIAN CONGREGATION, VIA SACRO CURORE DI MARIA 5, 00197 ROME ITALY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2788 CRL.P No. 9713 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2023 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL IN CRL.MISC.NO.1003/2023, CONFIRM THE BAIL CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN CRL.MISC.NO.973/2023 PASSED BY THE SAME COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the de-facto complainant in CC.No.1691/2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, is directed against the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Crl.Mis.No.1003/2023, whereby condition No.4 imposed upon respondent No.2-accused No.6 in the anticipatory bail order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Crl.Mis.No.973/2023 was relaxed by the Sessions Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2788 CRL.P No. 9713 of 2023 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2, who was arrayed as accused No.6 filed an application in Crl.Mis.No.973/2023 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was allowed by order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, respondent No.1-accused No.6 filed Crl.Mis.No.1003/2023 seeking relaxation of condition No.4 and the same was allowed by the Sessions Court by passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2023, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. It is significant to note that even before the present petition was preferred on 16.09.2023, respondent No.2-accused No.6 had filed regular bail application before the learned Magistrate, who has allowed the same vide order dated 07.08.2023 by imposing only the following conditions: 1 The accused No.6 shall execute personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum. 2 The accused No.6 shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 3 The accused No.6 shall appear before this Court on all dates of hearing. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2788 CRL.P No. 9713 of 2023 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the undisputed material on record which indicates that the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Crl.Mis.No.973/2023 and the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 would stand merged with the subsequent order granting regular bail dated 07.08.2023, the question of interfering with the impugned order does not arise, especially since upon passing the order of regular bail on 07.08.2023 in favour of respondent No.2-accused No.6, the earlier order of anticipatory bail and the impugned order relaxing condition No.4 would become non-existent and the same are not longer subsisting or in force so as to enable the petitioner to assail the same in the present petition. It is also pertinent to note that the said order dated 07.08.2023 granting regular bail had not been challenged and had attained finality and become conclusive. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned non-existent order which became inoperative and ceased to exist or subsist upon passing of the subsequent order dated 07.08.2023 granting regular bail in favour of the petitioner and consequently, nothing further survives for consideration in the present petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2788 CRL.P No. 9713 of 2023 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2