Prosecution must prove witness tampering by preponderance of probabilities for bail cancellation; mere allegations are insufficient.

ORDER :

M.I.ARUN, J.

One Yogesh Gouda was murdered on 15.06.2016. The petitioner was one of the Investigation Officer who investigated the murder. After investigation, charge sheet was filed accusing six persons of being involved in the murder of the said Yogesh Gouda. Allegations were also made against a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly ('MLA' for short), certain Police Officers including the petitioner herein and few other persons of trying to cover up the murder and it was alleged that the main conspirator of the murder was one of the sitting MLA of the State of Karnataka, and ultimately, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short) for fresh investigation. The CBI, after due investigation, has made twenty one persons as accused involved in the murder of Yogesh Gouda and also for trying to protect the real accused. The petitioner herein is made as accused No.19.

2. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has been granted regular bail on 22.10.2021 by the Court of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82).

3. While granting the bail, it is made subject to the following conditions:

"(i) He shall not directly or indirectly make an inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating agency.

(ii) He shall not leave India till conclusion of trial without the previous permission of the court and he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the investigating officer."

The murder is alleged to have been politically motivated. During the course of the trial, on the ground of accused Nos.15, 16 and 9 who were granted bail were found to be tampering with the witnesses and hampering the investigation, their bails have been cancelled by various Courts. Of them, accused No.15 is a sitting MLA of the ruling party in the State of Karnataka.

4. Presently, the evidence is still being recorded in Spl. CC.No.565/2021.

5. By a letter dated 25.06.2025 written to the Inspector General of Police & Director General of Police, Bengaluru, CW-42 (Sri Shivananda B.Salagatti) has complained that when he attended the domestic enquiry being conducted against the petitioner, accused No.19 approached him and tried to influence his deposition and also asked him to sign certain documents, the contents of which would ultimately help the petitioner/accused No.19 to be acquitted.

6. Based on the aforementioned letter, the prosecution has made an application before the trial court for cancellation of bail granted to petitioner/accused No.19.

7. The trial court, by its order dated 15.09.2025, has allowed the application filed by the prosecution and has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the contents of the letter dated 25.06.2025 written to the Police by CW-42 is false and the petitioner has not tried to influence the witnesses. It is contended that the evidence of CW-42 is already over and the question of influencing him does not arise. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the said letter are not corroborated by any other evidence and there has been no enquiry conducted in this regard. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not tried to influence any witness or tamper with the investigation at any given point of time and undertakes that he will never do it in future also and any stringent conditions as deemed appropriate by this Court may be imposed on him. It is further submitted that if bail were to be cancelled on a mere letter