- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104694 OF 2025 (439(2)(CR.PC)/483(3)(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHESH S/O MUDAKAPPA BALAREDDY AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O JEEVAPUR VILLAGE, POST. BENAKATTI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591126. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND ARAVIND PACHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD 580011. 2. SRI. BHARMA S/O MOHAN JUVEKAR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL ENGINEER, R/O. H.NO.289, CROSS NO.3- NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2/ACCUSED NO. 1 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 1329/2025 IN CRIME NO. 183/2025 BY THE RESPONDENT MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109, 115(2), 189(2), 190 AND 191(2) OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II, BELAGAVI. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Joshna P. Dhanave, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petition under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 8the Cr.P.C.9 for short) with the following prayer: <WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court to cancel the ball granted to the Respondents No. 2/Accused No. 1 vide order dated 31/10/2025 in Crl. Misc.No.1329/2025 in Crime No.183/2025 by the respondent Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 109, 115(2), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) of BNS, pending on the file of JMFC II, Belagavi, in the interest of justice.= 3. Petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The same is challenged before this Court stating that there is a non-application of mind and non-consideration of the material on record placed by the prosecution in the proper - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 perspective, resulting in miscarriage of justice in enlarging the second respondent on bail. 4. The same is opposed by the counsel for second respondent and learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 6. It is to be noted that an application filed under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall not be treated as an appeal over the grant of bail. However, the Courts are not helpless in cancelling the bail if it is brought to the notice of the Court that there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses, or if there is a repetition of the offences committed by the petitioner, or if there is any violation of the conditions that have been imposed by the Court granting the bail. One such condition would be whether the person who has the benefit of the bail would not be available for trial, or in other words, has jumped the bail. 7. No such complaint is forthcoming against the second respondent in the case on hand. On the contrary, the defacto complainant is contending that there is a serious injury caused to the defacto complainant, which has been ignored by the learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 trial judge while passing the order granting the bail to the second respondent. 8. On perusal of the order granting bail, there is discussion with regard to the material placed by the prosecution by the learned trial Judge. In other words, grant of bail is a discretionary order and unless it is palpably a wrong usage of discretion, the grant of bail should not usually be interfered with as per the settled of principles of law. 9. In the case on hand, no such compelling reasons are found. Therefore, the request for seeking cancellation of the bail needs to be turned down. 10. However, if the second respondent fails to adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge while granting the bail, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Court with a prayer for seeking cancellation of the bail. 11. Even though much is argued about the merits of the matter, this Court refrains from considering the same, as it would amount to reviewing or reconsidering the order of grant of bail, which is impermissible under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 12. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8