Karnataka High Court
Mr. Abhi @ Abhishek vs State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
CRL.A No. 1648 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. ABHI @ ABHISHEK,
SON OF BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NADABHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHEELANERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571426.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H S SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SMT PREMA,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N
WIFE OF REVANNA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NADABHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHEELANERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571426.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL SPP FOR R1,
SRI CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADV. FOR
SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADV. 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
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II MANDYA IN SPL.C
NO.09/2025 AND BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE BAIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
CRL.A No. 1648 of 2025
HC-KAR
GRANTED DATED 03.06.2025 TO THE APPELLANT IN CRIME
NO.235/2024 (SPL.C NO. 09/2025) OF K.R PET RURAL POLICE
STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
376(3), 376(2)(n), 376D, 450 AND 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 4,
5(g), 5(k), 5(1), 6 AND 10 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND SECTION 3(1)(w)(i)
AND 3(2)(v) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTS AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 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.5, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
under sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
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.5 on
10th November 2024 and produced him before the Magistrate.
He was reminded 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The present
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 his 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.5 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
the appeal. He would reiterate the averments made in the
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 substantite 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. Smt. 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 and 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,
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with
under Section 439(2) CrPC.
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.5 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
order, the bail granted in favour of the present
appellant/accused No.5 was cancelled and he was taken into
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
male 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 and 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.5 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.5 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
the Public Prosecutor has appeared before the court, it is his
bounden duty to place all the judicial proceedings before the
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.5 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.5, 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:
NC: 2025:KHC:41633
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
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.5 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
lnn
