Kiran N S vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 9809 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kiran N S vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:44597
                                                       CRL.A No. 2139 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2139 OF 2025
                    BETWEEN:
                    KIRAN N S,
                    S/O SHEKARAPPA,
                    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                    R/AT NADABHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                    SHEELANERE HOBLI, K R PET TQ,
                    MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATKA-571426.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                    (BY SRI PUNEETH B. S..,ADVOCATE)

                    AND:

                    1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                          KR PET RURAL P.S.
                          REP., BY HGGP,
                          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by       BANGALORE-560001.
AASEEFA
PARVEEN             2.    PREMA,
Location: HIGH            W/O REVANNA,
COURT OF                  AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
KARNATAKA                 R/AT NADABHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                          SHEELANERE HOBLI, K R PET TQ,
                          MANDYA DISTRICT,
                          KARNATKA-571426,

                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                    (BY MS ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1,
                     SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                         THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
                    2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:44597
                                       CRL.A No. 2139 of 2025


HC-KAR




SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-II MANDYA IN SPLCASE
NO.09/2025 (CRIME NO.235/2024) AMD GRANT REGULAR BAIL
IN SPL.CASE NO.09/2025 (CRIME NO.235/2024) FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S 376(3),376(2)(n),376DA, 450,149 OF IPC
AND U/S 10, 4, 6, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L) OF POCSO ACT 2012 ALSO
U/S 3(1) (w), 3(2)(v) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015. WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II
MANDYA.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant who is accused No.4, has preferred this appeal

against the order dated 15th July 2025, passed in Special Case

No.9 of 2025 by the Additional Sessions-FTSC-II, Mandya under

section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the trial

Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal, are that K.R. Pet,

Rural Police, registered Crime No.235 of 2024 against the

accused for the offence punishable under sections 376(3),

376(2)(n), 375DA, 450, 149 of Indian Penal Code and under

sections 4, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L), 6 and 10 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act (for short "the POCSO Act") and

under sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

2015 (for short "the SC/ST (PoA) Act").

3. First informant who is the mother of victim-girl, has

filed typed first information alleging that on 29th October 2024,

she had taken her minor daughter to the hospital for medical

checkup. The doctor at the hospital, after medically examining

the victim-girl, informed the first informant that the victim girl

was pregnant. Upon Enquiry, the victim girl allegedly informed

the first informant that five persons whose name are in the

First Information Report had sexual intercourse with her, and

as a result, she had conceived. Then the first informant

approached the police and based on her complaint, FIR was

registered. The police have arrested appellant/accused No.4 on

10th November 2024 and produced him before the Magistrate.

He was remanded to judicial custody. After investigation,

investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(3),

376(2)(n), 375DA, 450, 149 of Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 4, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L), 6 and 10 of POCSO Act and under

Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The present

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

appellant filed bail application under section 483 of BNSS,

2023, which came to be allowed on the ground of parity.

Subsequently, it came to light that accused No.3, while seeking

bail from the special court, suppressed the material fact that

his earlier bail application had been rejected by this court.

Upon discovering the concealment, the learned special court,

without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of

hearing to the appellant, suo motu proceeded to cancel the bail

which was granted not only to the accused No.3, but also to the

appellant/accused No.4 and other accused by common order

dated 15th July 2025.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated

the averments made in the memorandum of appeal and sought

to allow the appeal. To substantiate his argument, he has relied

upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of BHURI BAI

v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2022 LIVELAW (SC)

956.

5. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 has filed his written objection and sought for dismissal of

the appeal. He would reiterate the averments made in the

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

written objection that the Session Court has got ample power

to suo motu cancel the bail under sub-section(2) of section 439

of Code of Criminal Procedure. To substantiate his argument,

he would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of R RATHINAM v. THE STATE BY DSP, DISTRICT CRIME

BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER

reported in (2000)2 SCC 391.

6. Ms.Asma Kauser, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State supports the

arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant.

7. I have examined the materials placed before me.

Before appreciating the materials on record, it is necessary to

mention here as to the decision of Supreme Court in the Case

of BHURI BAI (supra). In the said judgment at paragraphs 19

and 20, the Supreme Court has observed as under.:

"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) CrPC.

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail."

8. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the

trial court has granted bail to the present appellant i.e. accused

No.4 on 03rd June 2025. It is also an admitted fact that the

victim or the State has not preferred any appeal against the

order passed by the trial court. On 15th July 2025, The trial

Court, suo motu, passed impugned order and in view of this

order, the bail granted in favour of the present

appellant/accused No.4 was cancelled and he was taken into

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

custody and until now he is in custody. The trial court has

observed in the order that, "accused No.3 by suppressing the

dismissal of bail, has moved the bail application on the ground

of parity and the application was allowed on 19th June, 2025.

All the accused belong to the same village, therefore it is highly

impossible to believe that they were unaware of the rejection of

bail application of accused No.3. Accused No.4 and 5 also

suppressed the truth that the bail application of accused No.3

was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and

moved bail application on the ground of bail order of accused

No.1. Hence, this court is of the opinion that accused 4 and 5

also suppressed the material facts and misled the court."

9. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that

accused No.4 was not aware as to the rejection of the bail

application filed by accused No.3 as he was in judicial custody.

When appellant/accused No.4 was in judicial custody, he could

not know anything about the court proceedings. The learned

Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. When

the Public Prosecutor has appeared before the court, it is his

bounden duty to place all the judicial proceedings before the

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

trial court. However, learned Public Prosecutor who has

appeared on behalf of the State, has not brought to the notice

as to the rejection of the bail application of accused No.3. Even

if it is presumed that accused No.4 has got knowledge as to the

rejection of the bail filed by the accused No.3, it is not his duty

to place the same before the court. When the accused was in

custody at the time of granting bail, at least the trial court

would have provided an opportunity to the appellant to submit

his explanation. But the trial court has not given any

opportunity to the appellant before cancellation of bail.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and also

applying the principles in the decision relied upon by the

learned Counsel for the appellant/accused No.4, I am of the

considered opinion that the impugned order, passed the trial

court is illegal, opposed to natural justice and not sustainable

under law. Accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In

the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed;

NC: 2025:KHC:44597

HC-KAR

ii) Order dated 15th July 2025 passed in Spl.

C.No.9 of 2025 by the Additional District Judge- FTSC-II, Mandya is set aside;

iii) The trial Court is directed to release the appellant/accused No.4 forthwith;

iv) Appellant shall abide by the conditions which were imposed at the time of granting bail by the trial Court;

v) It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

AP