The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the accused had violated specific conditions imposed by the court, the court chose not to cancel the bail immediately, reserving the right to do so in the future if the accused continued to violate the court's orders.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to cancel the bail granted to accused No. 1 for violating the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 6189/2016 dated 15.09.2016 and order to take the accused No. 1 into custody and keep in detention till the conclusion of the trial.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No. 1 was arraigned as accused in Cr. No. 35/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on account of murder of one Vinayaka Baliga. This Court granted bail in favour of respondent No. 1 with conditions vide order dated 15.09.2016 and respondent No. 1 has violated condition Nos. (g) and (i) of the said order passed by this Court, which read thus:

"(g) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned court on all the future dates of hearing except on the dates on which he is exempted from appearing for valid reasons.

(i) Petitioner shall keep himself away from all the activities and affairs of Shri Venkataramana Temple, Car Street, Mangaluru and Kashimutt, Mangaluru, and from the affairs and activities of all the committees attached to the said temple till conclusion of the trial of the case."

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent No. 1 has actively participated in all the functions of Shri. Venkataramana Temple, Car Street, Mangaluru and Kashimutt, Mangaluru and in support of his arguments he has produced photographs to show that the first respondent had participated in the activities of the said Shri Venkataramana temple even though there is a direction while granting bail that he should keep himself away from all the activities and affairs of the said temple. The first respondent has taken active part in the Car Festival and connected programmes organized by Shri Venkataramana temple held during the month of February 2017. Inspite of the complaints made by the general public as well as the applicant, no action has been initiated against the first respondent. There are several meeting and temple activities and functions being held at the said temple. Inspite of there being a condition imposed by the Court, by violating the said condition, the first respondent is taking active part by his personal presence and causing commotion and embarrassment to the trustees and devotees of the temple and the persons belonging to Goud Saraswath community and there is every likelihood or chance of tampering of vital documents of the temple.

4. It is also further contended that there was Chathurmasa programme of Kashimutt for the year 2020 from the month of July to October 2020, in which one of the conspirators involved in the murder of Vasanth Baliga, Srimad Samyamendra Thirtha Swamiji has taken part in the said programme continuously for a period of four months at Shri Venkataramana temple, Kashimutt, Konchadi, Mangaluru and number of programmes, activities and processions took place in the said temple. The first respondent took active and leading role in all the programmes by associating with Srimad Samyamendra Thirtha Swamiji and he has openly sat in the tableau in which the said Srimad Samyamendra Thirtha Swamiji was carried. The accused No. 1 is posing threat to the applicant and her family members. It is necessary to cancel the bail since, the first respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the order. The petitioner complained to the police but respondent No. 1 used all his political power since he used the present MLA to shield him.

5. This petition is resisted by filing detail statement of objections by denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that similar application was filed before the Sessions Judge and also before this Court in Crl. P. No. 4415/2018 and the same was dismissed. It is contended that he was not involved in the management and affairs of the temple and neither the first respondent no