IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17126 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

RAJANNA D @ RAJU S/O DAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT H. NO 2353/2, 1ST CROSS, KAILASAPURAM, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

REP/BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI BANGALORE - 560 001.

J KARISHETTY Location: H igh Court of

2. SMT. SOWMYA, Karnataka W/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RES/AT NO. 1136, 2ND CROSS, C BLOCK, MAHADEVAPURA, MYSURU - 570 008.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 IN SPL.C.NO.72/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC I MYSURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Krishnamoorthy D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 14.10.2025, which cancels the bail that was granted to the petitioner on the score that the petitioner has threatened the victim and the family members when he was out. Copious evidence is placed before the concerned Court for filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. The concerned Court has by a detailed order rendering cogent reasons cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The offence is horrendous and heinous. The Apex Court in a plethora of judgments has held that threatening of witnesses, tampering of evidence, subversion of trial or attempt to hamper the investigation, are all grounds for cancellation of bail. It becomes apposite to notice a few:

2.1. In the case of X3 v. STATE OF BIHAR, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1490, the Apex Court holds that if releasing the accused would have an adverse impact on the trial due to possibility of witnesses being threatened, the bail granted can be cancelled. The Apex Court observes as follows:

“…. …. ….

20. At the outset, we may like to note that the allegations attributed to respondent No. 2 shake the conscience of the Court. Respondent No. 2 being posted as the Officer in-charge of the women's protection home was required to work as a protector of the inmates, but she turned rogue and indulged in sexual exploitation of the helpless and destitute women who had been placed in the said protection home which is an institution created to provide them safety and security.

21. Thus, it is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil.

22. Not only are the allegations attributed to respondent No. 2-accused are grave and reprehensible in nature, in addition thereto, the fact remains that releasing respondent No. 2 on bail is

bound to have an adverse effect on trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened.

23. Recently, this Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 172] while placing reliance upon the case of Ajwar v. Waseem [(2024) 10 SCC 768] cancelled the bail granted to the accused in a dowry death case observing as follows:

“18…. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras “2