The subordinate court has jurisdiction to entertain applications for cancellation of bail granted by a higher court based on violations of bail conditions.

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