Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J
MANOJ @ MANU @ POOMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jayanth Venkatram, Devaraju R
For the Respondents: Rashmi Patel

The registration of a subsequent crime does not automatically warrant the cancellation of bail already granted, especially if the accused has been granted bail in that subsequent offence, as it does not necessarily constitute a misuse of liberty that impedes a fair trial.

Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC (Section 528 BNNS) seeking to quash an order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, which cancelled the petitioner's bail in Crime No. 169/2024. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner had been involved in a subsequent crime, Crime No. 229/2024, while on bail. The court found that the petitioner had already been granted regular bail in the subsequent crime (Crime No. 229/2024) by the same court of session. The primary issue was whether the mere registration of a subsequent crime automatically justifies the cancellation of bail already granted. The court reasoned that "the mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused itself, cannot result in the automatic cancellation of the bail once granted" and that if the petitioner has been granted bail in the subsequent crime, the ground for cancellation of the previous bail no longer holds water. The petition stands allowed.

Table of Content
1. review of lower court's reasoning for bail cancellation due to misuse of liberty. (Para 7 , 9)

##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30485

CRL.P No. 5566 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

MANOJ @ MANU @ POOMA

S/O SUBRAMANYA,

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

R/AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS,

NEAR MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE,

HOSAGUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 026.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAYANTH VENKATRAM, ADVOCATE A/W

SRI. DEVARAJU R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed by

BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION

SANJEEVINI J

KARISHET TY NO.22/25, MYSORE ROAD,

Location: High VENKATESHPURA,

Court of Karnataka

BANASHANKARI STAGE 1,

BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU,

KARNATAKA - 560 026

REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528

BNNS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30485

CRL.P No. 5566 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 PASSED BY THE XV ADDL.CITY

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.MISC

NO.4178/2025 CANCELLING THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE

PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an

order of the concerned Court dated 24.01.2026, which cancels

the bail granted in Crime No.169/2024 on the score that the

petitioner, after his enlargement on bail, has indulged in

identical offences, which have become a crime in

Crime No.229/2024.

2. Heard Sri Jayanth Venkatram, learned counsel along

with Sri Devaraju R., appearing for the petitioner and

Smt. Rashmi Patel, HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime

No.169/2024, which is registered on 12.05.2024 for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with 34

of the IPC. The petitioner was taken into custody and was later

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30485

CRL.P No. 5566 of 2026

HC-KAR

enlarged on bail on 19.06.2024 in Crl.Mis.No.5205/2024. After

the enlargement on bail, the prosecution files an application

seeking cancellation of bail granted in Crime No.169/2024 on

the score that the petitioner has got himself embroiled in

another crime in Crime No.229/2024 for the offences

punishable under Sections 109 , 115(2), 118(1) of the BNS,

inter alia. The application of the prosecution merits acceptance

at the hands of the concerned Court and the bail so granted in

Crime No.169/2024 stood cancelled. It is this order of

cancellation of bail, which has driven the petitioner to this Court

in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the strength on which the cancellation of bail in

Crime No.169/2024 has happened, is no longer in subsistence,

as the very Court of Session has granted the bail in

Crime No.229/2024 i.e., the subsequent crime. Therefore, the

order of cancellation of bail must be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would accept the fact

that the concerned Court has granted bail in

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30485

CRL.P No. 5566 of 2026

HC-KAR

Crime No. 229/2024 and would leave the decision to the hands

of this Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass,

whether the order of cancellation of bail would stand

sustenance today. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner gets

embroiled in Crime No.169/2024, for offence punishable under

Section 307 of the IPC, inter alia. The petitioner was enlarged

on bail on 19.06.2024, it having been granted by the concerned

Court. After his enlargement on bail, the prosecution files an

application on the score that the conditions of bail are violated,

as the petitioner has got himself embroiled in a subsequ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document