- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4187 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O NAGAPPA R/AT NO.21, YALACHIHALLI GUBBI TALUK, KADABA TUMKUR DIST - 572 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PALLAVA R, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUBBI P.S GUBBI TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219 REP. BY LEARNED S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. RAVEESHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O NANJAPPA R/AT YALACHIHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439(2) (FILED U/S.483(3) BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2026 CONSEQUENTLY /CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2nd RESPONDENT/ACCUSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC NO.299/2026 IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.56/2026 REGISTERED BY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 THE GUBBI PS FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 109,126(2),352,351(2) OF BNS 2023 AND DIRECT THE IST RESPONDENT GUBBI PS TO ARREST THE 2nD RESPONENT/ACCUSED AND COMMIT HIM TO CUSTODY IN RELATION TOT HE SAID CRIME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The defacto complainant is before this Court in this Criminal Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.299/2026 and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 in Crime No.56/2026, registered by Gubbi Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. FIR in Crime No.56/2026 was registered by Gubbi Police Station, Tumakuru District against respondent no.2 herein, based on the information received from the petitioner, who is the father of injured victim Smt. Pooja. Apprehending arrest, respondent no.2 had filed Crl.Misc.No.299/2026 before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 which was allowed on 26.02.2026. Assailing the said order, defacto complainant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the petitioner who is a lady aged 32 years had suffered grievous injuries as a result of assault made by respondent no.2, herein. Her face has been disfigured and even before she was discharged from the hospital, accused has been granted anticipatory bail. Assault is made by the accused with a machete and anticipatory bail has been granted to the accused without taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has granted bail only on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the parties and no other reasons have been assigned. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who has filed his statement of objection opposing the prayer made in the petition submits that, investigation of the case is already completed and therefore, petitioner's custody is no more required. Victim has been discharged from the hospital and she is out of danger. Bail granted to an accused can be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 cancelled, only if he has violated the bail conditions. Respondent no.2 has not violated any bail conditions and therefore, his bail cannot be cancelled. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIPAN KUMAR DHIR V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - (2021) 15 SCC 518 and also in the case of AJWAR V. WASEEM AND ANOTHER - (2024) 10 SCC 768. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 with regard to a certain pathway, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.787/2025. In the alleged incident that had taken place on 17.02.2026, the petitioner's daughter Smt. Pooja, aged 32 years was assaulted by respondent no.2 herein with a machete and as a result, she had suffered grievous injury on her face and other parts of her body. Immediately thereafter, Smt. Pooja was shifted to a government hospital at Gubbi and for better treatment, she was subsequently, shifted to a hospital at Tumakuru. Thereafter, her father had approached the police and registered a criminal case against - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 respondent no.2 in Crime No.56/2026. Apprehending arrest in the said case, respondent no.2 had filed Crl.Misc.No.299/2026, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 26.02.2026. The reasoning assigned for grant of anticipatory bail given to the respondent no.2 is recorded in paragraph no.12 of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.299 of 2026, which reads as follows:- 12. On perusal of all these documents, it prima-facie reveals that there is a civil case between the petitioner and the informant. The allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused are all question of facts, which needs to be proved by the prosecution at the time of full fledged trial. The petitioner/accused is the permanent resident of the address as mentioned in the petition cause title and he is not required for custodial interrogation by the police and the police can investigate the case without his arrest and the apprehensions of the prosecution is that if the bail is granted to him, he may abscond, he may commit similar offences, he may hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The aforesaid apprehensions of the prosecution, could be meted out by imposing certain conditions. With these circumstances, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative". - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 6. The victim who had suffered grievous injury in the incident that took place on 17.02.2026 was admitted in the hospital for her treatment and as on the date, order was passed in Crl.Misc.No.299/2026, she was still admitted in the hospital and undergoing treatment. Learned Session Judge without even verifying the gravity of the injuries suffered by the victim, status of her health conditions etc. has granted anticipatory bail for the petitioner, who allegedly had assaulted a married lady, having two small children with a machete causing grievous injury. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, as a result of the assault, victim has lost several teeth and her face is also disfigured. The victim had undergone treatment in a hospital for a considerable period of time and even after she was discharged her medical records would reveal that she was continuously taking follow-up treatment for the injuries suffered by her on her face. In addition to the grievous injury suffered by the victim on her face, she also had suffered fracture injury on her forearm. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 8. The Court, while considering a bail application, needs to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation and also the severity of punishment in the event of conviction. In addition the Court has to verify whether there is any prima facie case and reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed the offence. 9. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has not at all appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and on the other hand has proceeded to grant anticipatory bail in a hurried manner on the reasoning that there is a civil dispute between parties. Respondent no.2 has allegedly assaulted the victim with a machete and the weapon used for committing the offence was not recovered. In spite of the same, learned Sessions Judge has observed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be necessary and the police can investigate the case without arresting the accused. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIPAN KUMAR DHIR (supra) in paragraph nos.9 to 11 has observed as follows:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 "9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well-settled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that “cogent and overwhelming reasons” are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, para 4 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 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.” 10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana. 11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJWAR V. WASEEM & ANR (supra) in paragraph no.28 and 29 has observed as follows:- "28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 29. In Jagjeet Singh [Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439CrPC is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well- established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer : Puran v. Rambilas Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat." 12. 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 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." 13. In the case of MAHIPAL V. RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS POLIA AND ANOTHER - (2020) 2 SCC 118 in paragraph nos.11 and 12 has observed as follows: 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 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 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. 14. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant of bail. The Court has to consider each case on its facts and circumstances and the discretion of the Court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. 15. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested by an Appellate Court 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. 16. In case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has exercised its discretion arbitrarily without taking into consideration the gravity of the accusation and the severity of injuries suffered by the victim. The reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail in a case of such a serious allegation, where the accused could be punished with life imprisonment cannot be accepted. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 17. The order of bail which is bereft of any cogent reasoning cannot be sustained as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case of JAYABEN (supra). Merely for the reason that the charge sheet is now filed, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge arbitrarily without assigning cogent reasons granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a case where the accused could be punished with life imprisonment, cannot not be sustained. 18. In the present case, relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the bail application are not being taken note and on the other hand, bail has been granted taking irrelevant considerations and therefore, such an order cannot be sustained. Under these circumstances, the following:- ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 in Crl.Misc.No.299/2026 vide order dated 26.02.2026 by the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Crime No.56/2026 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30497 CRL.P No. 4187 of 2026 registered by Gubbi Police Station, Tumakuru District is set aside and respondent no.2 is directed to surrender within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) It is made clear that observations made above are all confined to examining the infirmity of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to respondent no.2. (iv) This order shall not be preclude respondent no.2 from applying for a regular bail before the jurisdictional Court and if such an application is filed seeking regular bail, the same shall be considered on merits of the case without being influenced by this order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44