- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11758 OF 2025 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWRAPPA, HCGP) AND: SRI VIKAS S/O M KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.441, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAULINE PRIYANKA B., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2024 PASSED BY THE 71 CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 CRL.MISC.NO.8428/2024 AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL FOR THE O/P/U/S 498-A, 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.214/2024 OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-state. None appears for the respondent. 2. State has preferred the present petition under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of the grant of bail to the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8428/2024. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present case are as under : 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged with Bagalagunte Police against the respondent stating that the respondent is responsible for the suicidal death of Smt. Nayana, who was married to the respondent, which was a love marriage. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 3.2 A sum of Rs.15 Lakhs was spent for the marriage. It is further alleged in the complaint that after the marriage, deceased joined the matrimonial home. Respondent and his parents used to pick up quarrel with the deceased practically every day for one reason or the other on flimsy reasons and also suspected her chastity. 3.3 Being unable to bear the harassment, Nayana said to have committed suicide by hanging herself. 3.4 Police after registering the case, for investigating the matter, inter alia arrested the respondent. 3.5 He approached the District Court for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.Misc.No.8428/2024. 3.6 Learned Session Judge, after entertaining the objections of the prosecution noted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is completed and major portion of the investigation was also completed and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 therefore continuation of the respondent in judicial custody was no longer warranted. 3.7 He also opined that continuation of the accused in judicial custody would amount to pre-trial conviction and granted the bail by exercising the discretionary power by imposing suitable conditions including taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety. 3.8 Passport of the respondent was also confiscated and there was a condition not to leave the limits of Bangalore jurisdiction till the conclusion of the trial. 4. Not satisfied with the order of grant of bail, State has preferred the present petition stating that offence is sinuous in nature, which would attract the punishment of ten years and even before the investigation could be completed, grant of bail has hampered the investigation process and sought for cancellation of the bail. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 5. Respondent is absent and therefore this Court perused the material on record in the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the State. 6. Admittedly from the grounds of the petition, there is no material that there is a violation of conditions of grant of bail. 7. Further, the learned Sessions Judge while granting the bail noted that custodial interrogation was completed and investigation had progressed to a major extent and noted that continuation of the custody of the respondent would amount to pre-trial conviction. 8. In other words, learned Sessions Judge while granting the bail has taken into consideration the objections filed on behalf of the State and later on granted the bail by exercising discretionary power, which is sound in nature. 9. State is aggrieved that grant of bail even before the investigation could be completed holds no water - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19551 CRL.P No. 11758 of 2025 inasmuch as why continuation of the respondent in judicial custody was necessary is not forthcoming from the objection statement. 10. Merely on the ground that the offence alleged against the respondent is punishable with ten years of imprisonment would not ipso facto make out a case for seeking cancellation of bail. 11. Accordingly, grounds seeking cancellation of bail suffers from want of merits. 12. Hence, the following order: ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3