- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102196 OF 2025 (439(2) OF Cr.PC/483(3) OF BNSS) BETWEEN: MS. AKSHATA SURAJ PATIL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. PLOT NO. 13, SHIVAM SOCIETY, SHAHUNAGAR, BELAGAVI-591108, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH CAMP P. S.) BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. 2. SMT. JYOTI W/O. NITIN BANDEKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.103, TRIVIKRAM APARTMENT, VIJAYANAGAR, HINDALAGA, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 BELAGAVI-591108, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. MS. SUHANI NITIN BANDEKAR, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.103, TRIVIKRAM APARTMENT, VIJAYANAGAR, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI-591108, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 (2) OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483(3) OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY CANCELLING THE BAIL GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY IN CRI.MISC.NO.583/2025 (CRIME NO.23/2025 OF CAMP POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF BNS 2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.05.2025 PASSED BY IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SO FAR AS TO GRANTING OF REGULAR BAIL IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Suhas K. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. J. Basavaraj for the petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. K. Anand Kumar for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner – de facto complainant has filed this petition under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) for cancellation of bail granted by the trial Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.583/2025 dated 16.05.2025 with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by cancelling the bail granted in favour of the Respondent No. 2 & 3/Accused No. 1 & 2 respectively in Cri. Misc. No. 583/2025 (Crime No.23/2025 of Camp Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Section 103 of BNS 2023 vide Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by Hon'ble IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi in so far as to granting of regular bail in favour of the Respondent No. 2 & 3/Accused No. 1 & 2 respectively, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 21.04.2025 in between 10:30 a.m. to 07:25 p.m. accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the house of deceased Anjana Ajit Daddikar at S.F.04, Ganesh Residency, 2nd Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, Hindalga, Belagavi and snatched her gold articles and murdered her. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint. This led to registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 / respondent Nos.2 and 3, recorded their statement and seized the gold articles belonging to the deceased and thereafter filed the charge sheet. Hence, accused Nos.1 and 2 / respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed bail petition before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.583/2025, who in-turn granted bail to the accused persons with certain conditions. The operative portion of the said order is as under: “The petition filed by the petitioners u/s. 483 of BNSS Act is hereby allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail in Camp P.S.Cr.No.23/2025 registered for the offence punishable under section 103 of IPC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum subject to following conditions: 1. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 2. He shall not involve in similar offence or in any other offence. 3. He shall co-operate with IO inn investigation. 4. He shall mark his attendance before I.O in second Sunday of the month between 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM to charge sheet is filed or 90 days whichever is earlier.” 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of the bail on the following grounds. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner – de facto complainant that respondent Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.1 and 2) are involved in the commission of a heinous offence, resulting in the tragic death of the petitioner's mother. Therefore, the regular bail granted in their favour deserves to be cancelled. There exists a significant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 apprehension that respondent Nos.2 and 3 may interfere with the ongoing investigation conducted by respondent No.1 (the Police), and may also attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby undermining the administration of justice and causing irreparable hardship to the petitioner and her family. 6. It is further contended that the regular bail was granted by the trial Court in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 even before the filing of the charge sheet. At this stage, crucial evidence has already been recovered by the Police, including the jewelry belonging to the deceased mother of the petitioner and the two-wheeler used in the commission of the crime, from the possession of respondent Nos.2 and 3. These recoveries are sufficient to prima facie indicate their involvement in the offence. There exists a real and imminent threat that respondent Nos.2 and 3, now being out on bail, may abscond from the jurisdiction of law or tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses. This justifies the cancellation of their bail even at the crime stage itself. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 7. It is further contended that respondent No.2 is misusing the liberty granted under the regular bail order, and such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. Hence, in the interest of justice and given the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to be cancelled. The trial Court, while granting bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3, has taken an unduly lenient view and has failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence. The material collected during the investigation, which prima facie points to their involvement in the crime, was not given due consideration. Thus, the bail order deserves to be set aside. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very recovery of the deceased's jewelry and the vehicle used in the crime from respondents Nos.2 and 3 is strong incriminating evidence. Their continued release on bail undermines the principle underlying the Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” — meaning when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases to exist. The bail granted is, therefore, not sustainable. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court in granting regular bail is devoid of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 consideration of the relevant material facts and circumstances, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Even assuming the prosecution material on record is taken at face value, it prima facie establishes that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed a heinous offence involving brutal violence. Hence, they do not deserve the benefit of regular bail. 9. It is further contended that without delving into a detailed analysis of the material collected thus far, it is submitted that overwhelming evidence exists on record indicating the culpability of respondents Nos.2 and 3, including that this is a case of homicide, evidenced by the unnatural death of the Petitioner's mother; recovery of the deceased's jewelry and the two-wheeler used in the crime from the accused clearly indicates their motive and participation in the commission of the offence; the deceased was subjected to brutal torture before death, and the nature of injuries suffered by her shows the barbaric nature of the crime, instilling fear in the minds of the public; the prosecution has established a credible motive, further substantiating the involvement of respondents Nos.2 and 3; there exists a serious and ongoing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 threat to the petitioner and her family, which could jeopardize the trial and endanger their safety. 10. It is further contended that prima facie, the ingredients of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are clearly attracted, justifying the implication of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged offence. Given that the investigation is still ongoing and the final report/charge sheet is yet to be filed, there is a high probability that respondent Nos.2 and 3 may interfere with the investigation or tamper with evidence, especially as they reside in the same city as the petitioner and key witnesses. 11. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petition before this Court is maintainable having regard to the fact that cancellation of bail is permissible either before the Court, which granted bail or before this Court having regard to the concurrent power vested by the statue in this Court. He would also contend that even in the absence of any violation of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, very - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 grant of bail can be questioned before this Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 oppose the petition, stating that the order of granting bail is a discretionary order and, in the absence of any compelling circumstances, bail once granted cannot be cancelled. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, even though an accused, who is alleged with a heinous offence like Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ordinarily would not get an order of bail. However, grant of bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge with conditions if needs to be assailed, there must be compelling circumstances or violation of the conditions. 15. As a general rule, an application seeking cancellation of bail is to be filed before the Court, which - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 granted the bail, inasmuch as, it is that Court which has exclusive knowledge of facts for grant of bail or rejection thereof. 16. Even though concurrent powers are vested in this Court along with the Special Court or the Sessions Court to grant or cancel the bail, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail. 17. The scheme of the statute does not provide for such an eventuality. Even in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature so as to vest the power of either revision or appeal over the discretionary order of grant of bail. 18. Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is retained in verbatim of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. If at all the legislature is of the opinion that even in case of a discretionary order, if no proper discretion is exercised by a Court, then such orders could also be the subject matter of either revision or appeal, necessarily the legislature would have carved out such power in the higher - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 Courts namely, the High Court as against the Sessions Court or the Special Court. 19. In the absence of any such power being vested in the higher Courts either under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or any other provision of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and no such power being carved out in the POCSO Act as well, this Court is of the considered opinion that bail once granted cannot be cancelled just for asking. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Telangana and another1, has summarized as to cancellation of bail as under: “11. In Kanwar Singh, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 185-86. para 10) "10.... Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the 1 (2018) 16 SCC 511 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court." 12. In Neeru Yadav, applying the same principle, this Court held that: (SCC p. 428, para 11) "11. It is a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge." 13. The decision in Rajballav Prasad emphasises that while the liberty of the subject is an important consideration, the public interest in the proper administration of criminal justice is equally important: (SCC p. 193, para 26) "26.... undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations." 14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana observed that: (SCC pp. 350-51, para 4) "4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 15. These principles have been reiterated by another two-Judge Bench decision in CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and more recently in Dataram d Singh v. State of U.P.9: (Subramani case, SCC pp. 303-04, para 23) "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 16. Having considered the rival submissions, we are not at this stare inclined to delve into the merits of the allegations at any length in order to preclude the possibility of our observations influencing the course of the trial. Since the appeal has been - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 argued at some length before the Court, we are indicating our reasons, though with a clarification- by way of abundant caution -that our observations are confined to the issues which arise here in an against the order of the High Court granting bail under Section 439. Having heard the learned counsel, we have arrived at the conclusion that the exercise of discretion by the High Court in the present case cannot be faulted. We must, at the outset, note that the case of the complainant is that the accused had (as she described in the complaint) "been making false promises for getting married to her". This has been reiterated in the charge-sheet which has been submitted on 6-3- 2018. At this stage, all that we need to note is that even going by the case of the complainant, there was intimate contact between the complainant and the accused over a period of nearly six months between July 2015 and January 2016. Even according to the complainant, she visited the accused on two occasions in Hyderabad and stayed with him. The tickets for her travel from Mumbai were borne by the accused. The complaint was filed nearly a year thereafter in January 2017. This is a relevant circumstance which has been taken note of by the High Court. These circumstances do bear upon the defence that there was a consensual relationship between the complainant and the accused. Both in her complaint as well as in the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 charge-sheet, it has been alleged that the accused had falsely promised to marry the complainant. However, in the course of the rejoinder, the complainant has substantially diluted this stand, alleging that: "That the petitioner has at every stage-including in arguments before this Hon'ble Court-maintained that the promise to marry was merely a complete elucidation of the facts and circumstances of the case." During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that this is not a case involving a breach of a promise to marry. 17. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17- 11-2017¹ in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22-11-2017 is not, in our view, a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the lodging of the second FIR, four days after the order of bail is merely an attempt to - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 bolster a case based on a supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness and a complete absence of details. We are not inclined to make any 9 further observations and leave the matter there. Above all, the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. We find that to be absent in the present case. 18. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the High Court allowing the application for bail cannot be faulted. Moreover, no supervening circumstance has been made out to warrant the cancellation of the bail. There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused has been guilty of conduct which would warrant his being deprived of his liberty. 19. However, we are of the view that the quantum of the personal bond fixed by the High Court should be enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly direct that the quantum of the personal bond shall stand enhanced to Rs 10 lakhs. Compliance shall be effected within two weeks from today. Subject to the above modification, the appeal shall stand disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8524 CRL.P No. 102196 of 2025 21. No doubt, if there is a grave and serious error that has been committed by the Court while granting the bail, same can be questioned under the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and by invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 22. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner – de facto complainant, the present petition in the considered opinion of this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 46