- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:119 CRL.P No. 10734 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10734 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KRISHNA. N S/O LATE. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MASON R/AT BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 130. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAWALA POLICE STATION, MYSURU - 571 130 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:119 CRL.P No. 10734 of 2025 2. SHASHIKALA W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: NURSE, R/AT NO.125, 4TH CROSS, BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.208/2023 IN SO FAR AS IT RELEASE TO CANCELLING BAIL BONDS AND REMANDING PETITIONER TO JUDICIAL CUSTORDY (CHARGE SHEETED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S. 498A, 307 OF IPC). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:119 CRL.P No. 10734 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2025 has passed the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.09.2023 and had remained on bail since then, in the absence of application seeking cancellation of the bail being filed by respondent No.1 - prosecution or respondent No.2-defacto complainant, the Trial Court fell in error in passing the impugned order erroneously relying upon the alleged submission of CW1 and CW3 who were present in the court on the date of the impugned order, and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that by way of interim order seeks the personal liberty of the petitioner is curtailed who had been enlarged on bail from 16.07.2025 onwards and the jail authorities may be directed to release the petitioner pending disposal of this petition. In support of her submission, she places reliance on the decisions in 'SMT.SULIYA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE' ILR 2008 KAR 3438 and 'MR.MOHAMMAD SIRAZ @ SIRAZ VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA', CRL.P.NO.3884/2023. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the submission and submit that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:119 CRL.P No. 10734 of 2025 there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. After considering the rival submissions, I am prima facie of the view that having regard to the undisputed fact that neither respondent No.1-prosecution nor respondent No.2 - defacto complainant sought for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of the petitioner as long back as on 25.09.2023 coupled with the fact that the Trial court has proceeded merely on the basis of a self-serving statement and the alleged mobile conversation said to have been shown by CW1 who is none other than the wife of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 - prosecution and the concerned jail authorities to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay by way of interim order, pending disposal of the petition. Accordingly, I.A.1/2025 filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondent No.1 - police authorities and the concerned jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner from the judicial custody in S.C.No.208/2023 immediately without any delay. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.1-police authorities and the concerned jail authorities forthwith both telephonically and electronically. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall be bound by the same terms and conditions indicated in the bail order passed by the trial court. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2 returnable by 22.08.2025. Hand delivery permitted." The order is in great detail where the Co-ordinate Bench observes that the bail are granted to the husband could not have been cancelled without issuance of notice or even - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:119 CRL.P No. 10734 of 2025 following the procedure. On the very ground, the Co-ordinate Bench has now granted bail and therefore, the petition which challenges the cancellation of bail is rendered infructuous. 3. In that light, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as available in law, in the event of need, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83