1. Murder and conspiracy charges — Grant of bail by Supreme Court with conditions — Application for cancellation of bail alleging witness tampering under Section 439(2) CrPC. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1029
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
The State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. ……….Of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No 7865 Of 2025)
Decided On : 06-06-2025
The subordinate court has jurisdiction to entertain applications for cancellation of bail granted by a higher court based on violations of bail conditions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Bharitya Nagarik Surakha Sanhita, 2023 - Cancellation of bail - Court held that it has jurisdiction to consider cancellation applications even if bail was granted by a Constitutional Court, citing Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1978 SC 179. (Paras 16-17)
(B) The attempt to influence prosecution witnesses constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of bail. Court noted sufficient material indicating that the respondent attempted to contact and influence witnesses. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the State's challenge to the order of the Trial Court which declined to cancel the bail of the respondent despite allegations of witness tampering. The respondent was initially granted bail by the Supreme Court under specific conditions.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court erred in its view regarding maintaining authority to consider bail applications.
Issues: Whether the subordinate court has jurisdiction to cancel bail granted by a higher court, and whether allegations of witness tampering warrant bail cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a subordinate court retains the authority to entertain cancellation applications for bail violations, regardless of prior bail orders from higher courts.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution alleges witness tampering and jurisdiction of Trial Court to cancel bail — Defense contends no violation of conditions and lack of Trial Court jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Trial Court erred in denying jurisdiction; a Sessions Court can cancel bail granted by a higher court if conditions are violated, regardless of the granting court's status. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. A Trial Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 439(2) CrPC / 483(3) BNSS to cancel bail granted by a Constitutional Court upon violation of imposed conditions. (Para 17 )
5. Appeal allowed — Bail cancelled — Respondent directed to surrender within one week — Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously. (Para 19 , 21 )
6. Can a Trial Court cancel bail that was originally granted by a Constitutional Court?
Yes. A Court of Sessions is entitled to entertain an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC (now 483(3) of the BNSS) on grounds of violation of bail conditions, notwithstanding that the bail was granted by a Constitutional Court. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. What constitutes sufficient grounds for the cancellation of regular bail?
Evidence suggesting that the accused has attempted to contact or influence prosecution witnesses, thereby violating the conditions of bail, is sufficient material to justify the cancellation of bail. (Para 18 , 19 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. By way of the instant appeal, the State of Karnataka through the Central Bureau of Investigation (the “CBI”) has sought to assail the correctness of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Learned LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82) (the “Trial Court”) in Spl. C.C. No. 565 of 2021 (the “Impugned Order”) in relation to CBI’s application filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”) read with Section 483 (3) of the Bharitya Nagarik Surakha Sanhita, 2023 (the “ BNSS ”) seeking cancellation of bail granted to (i) Chandrashekhar Indi @ Chandu Mama; and (ii) the Respondent herein (the “Subject Application”).
3. Vide the Impugned Order, the Learned Trial Court partly allowed the CBI’s application seeking cancellation of bail insofar as Accused No. 16 i.e., Chandrashekhar Indi @ Chandu Mama is concerned. However, insofar as Accused No. 15 i.e., the Respondent herein is concerned, the Learned Trial Court declined to interfere on grounds of maintainability in view of the fact that the bail granted to the Respondent herein emanated from an order of this Hon’ble Court.
4. Shorn of unnecessary detail(s) - the underlying FIR bearing number 135 of 2016 came to be registered at PS Dharwad Sub-Urban under Section 302 / 143 /147 /148 / 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (the “IPC”) against unknown person(s) - pursuant to a complaint filed by one Smt. Mallavva alleging inter alia that her husband i.e., Yogesh Goudar, Member of the Zilla Panchayat, Dharawad (the “Deceased”) had been killed outside his gym in an act of political rage. Subsequently, a chargesheet came to be filed against 6 (six) persons on 09.09.2016. Thereafter, upon committal, S.C. No. 50 of 2017 came to be registered pursuant to which the trial commenced and substantially progressed.
5. On 06.09.2019, the Appellant State accorded sanction to the CBI to conduct further investigation under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Accordingly, on 24.09.2019, the CBI re-registered FIR No. 135 of 2016 as R.C. No. 17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR (the “Subject FIR”). Pursuant to the investigation undertaken by the CBI, 3 (three) supplementary chargesheet(s) came to be filed arraigning 15 (fifteen) additional accused person(s) including inter-alia the Respondent herein. In the interregnum the Respondent was arrested by the CBI in connection with the Subject FIR on 05.11.2020.
6. Pertinently, on 20.09.2020 the CBI filed a private complaint under Section 200 read with Section 195A of the CrPC before the Learned JMFC, Dharwad against the Respondent and 7 (seven) other person(s) alleging the commission of offence(s) under Section 195A of the IPC.
7. In these circumstances, the Respondent preferred an application seeking bail in connection with the Subject FIR before the Learned Trial Court. However, the same came to be dismissed by the Learned Trial Court in 2021. Subsequently the Hon’ble High Court vide an order dated 24.05.2021 in Criminal Petition No. 2601 of 2021 rejected the Respondents’ plea for the grant of bail.
8. The Respondent approached this Court seeking the grant of bail in connection with the Subject FIR vide SLP (Crl) No. 4739 of 2021 (subsequently converted into Crl. Appeal No. 807 of 2021). Vide an order dated 11.08.2021, this Court issued certain direction(s) which included enlarging the Respondent on bail. The operative paragraph is reproduced as under:
“Considering the facts and circumstances on record, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions:
I. The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court within three days from today and the Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail on such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose. Such conditions shall however include the following:
i. The appellant shall not in any way impede the conduct and proceedings of the investigation and the trial;
ii. The appellant shall not dire
