An order granting bail can be challenged under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. if it is perverse, contains serious infirmities, or relies on irrelevant materials; however, absent evidence of witness tampering or violation of bail conditions, cancellation is not warranted merely on allegations.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF THE Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING BAIL DATED 20.03.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, IN S.C.No.18/2023 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506, 448, 232, 302, 307, 326 OF I.P.C AND ACCUSED MAY BE DIRECTED TO SURRENDER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CAV ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the defacto complainant under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail granted by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, by order dated 20.03.2025 passed in S.C. No. 18/2023 and direct the accused to surrender before the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – defacto complainant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – accused.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner – defacto complainant would contend that respondent No. 2 – accused was facing trial in S.C. No. 18/2023 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamgga, for offence under Sections 504, 506, 448, 323, 303, 307, 326 of IPC. Respondent No. 2 – accused was in judicial custody. Bail application came to be filed on 30.12.2024 by advancing the case. The bail application came to be filed when the trial was in progress and prosecution had already examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4. On 05.03.2025, in the cross examination of P.W.6 by the learned Public Prosecutor there was a suggestion that money had been offered to give false evidence and produced pen drive containing conversation.

The trial Court recorded the same in the order sheet of 05.03.2025 and referred the matter to the concerned CPI, Shiralkoppa Police Station along with the said pen driver for proper investigation and suitable action. Thereafter the matter came to be adjourned to 20.03.2025 for examination of C.W.11 to C.W.12 and passing of order on bail application of the accused. On 20.03.2025 when the said mater regarding inducing C.W.6 by offering money to give false evidence was pending consideration the trial Court has allowed the bail application and granted bail to respondent No. 2 – accused. The offence alleged against respondent No. 2 – accused is heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also under Section 307 of IPC. The bail has been granted by cryptic order only on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not produce property seized along with the FSL report in time. As trial could not be commenced on time and also on the ground that material witnesses have already been examined and there is no reason that respondent No. 2 – accused may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Respondent No. 2 – accused is in judicial custody for more than three years. Therefore, order passed by the trial Court is perverse, suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has ignored the relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of respondent No. 2 – accused and taken into account irrelevant material, i.e., not furnishing the material objects and FSL report in time and respondent No. 2 – accused is in judicial custody for more than three years. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that as the order has been passed by the Sessions Court, the petition seeking cancellation of bail before this Court is maintainable and on that point he placed reliance on the following de