Allowed¶82

Channakeshava B Tingarikar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Cancellation of bail – standard of proof

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025CRL.P/13296/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.13296 of 2025 (decided 30.10.2025, M.I. Arun, J.; under S.528 BNSS / 482 CrPC): cancellation of bail — burden of proof — preponderance of probabilities versus proof beyond reasonable doubt — uncorroborated complaint of CW-42 — alleged witness tampering — bail of accused No.19 restored in CBI-prosecuted Spl.C.C.No.565/2021 (murder of Yogesh Gouda); relies on (1978) 2 SCC 411.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling the petitioner's bail set aside; petitioner ordered released on bail with the conditions imposed while granting bail earlier standing; prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation afresh if any bail condition is violated; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶82

Channakeshava B Tingarikar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the facts on hand warranted the trial court to cancel the bail of accused No.19 (the petitioner). +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

The prosecution did not establish, even on a preponderance of probabilities, that the petitioner violated his bail conditions; the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

For cancellation of bail, the prosecution must establish that the accused tried to influence or threaten a witness on a preponderance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt.

¶74

Key takeaways

The sole allegation against the petitioner — an attempt to influence CW-42, whose evidence was already over — rested on a bare complaint uncorroborated by any independent investigation or other documents.ratio¶77
Mere apprehension that the petitioner, being a police officer, may influence other witnesses is not sufficient to cancel his bail.ratio¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cancellation of bail — standard of proof — relying on State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, the High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) held that breach of bail conditions need be established only on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The sole material against the petitioner (accused No.19, one of the investigating officers in the Yogesh Gouda murder case, Spl.C.C.No.565/2021, prosecuted by the CBI) was CW-42's letter dated 25.06.2025 alleging an attempt to influence his deposition during a domestic enquiry; CW-42's evidence was already recorded and the complaint was uncorroborated by independent investigation. Mere apprehension, given the petitioner's status as a police officer, was held insufficient to cancel bail. The trial court's order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling bail was set aside; the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on the earlier conditions, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation afresh upon violation of any condition.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13296 OF 2025

¶7

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANNAKESHAVA B TINGARIKAR

¶10

S/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BASAVA NILAYA, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS,

¶11

MALAPRABA NAGAR

¶12

DHARWAD NEAR GRAMIN P.S.

¶13

DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.

¶14

... PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 36, BELLARY RD, KGH LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR,

¶18

BENGALURU-560 032.

¶19

SMT. MALLAVVA GOUDAR

¶20

W/O YOGISH GOUDA GOUDAR,

¶21

¶22

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT GOVANAKOPPA, DHARWAD-580 112.

¶23

GURUNATH GOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. GOVANAKOPPA, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.10.2025.)

¶26

(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI DEEPAK S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; R.2: NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.09.2025.)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 (482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) (SPECIAL COURT RELATED TO MP/MLA'S IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) IN SPL.C.C.NO.565/2021 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 25 READ WITH SECTIONS 3, 5, 8 AND SECTION 29 OF THE ARMS ACT, SECTIONS 7 AND 13(2) READ WITH 13(1) (D) OF P.C. ACT, ETC.

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶30

¶31

CAV ORDER

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

"(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.

¶38

(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."

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

a sitting MLA of the ruling party in the State of Karnataka.

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

cancelled on a mere letter written by one of the prosecution witnesses, then in that event, bail granted to the accused in almost all criminal cases will have to be cancelled as the complainant witnesses are also likely to make false allegation on the accused out of vengeance. It is further submitted that liberty of an individual is of highest importance and this Court while canceling the bail should exercise caution, and unless, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the conditions imposed while granting the bail have been violated, bail should not be cancelled. Based on the said submissions, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

¶50

The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the facts on hand warranted the trial court to cancel the bail of accused No.19 or not?

¶51

¶52

The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the nature of burden that is required to be discharged by the prosecution for cancellation of bail in STATE

¶53

(DELHI ADMINISTRATION) V. SANJAY GANDHI reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411 in paragraph Nos.14, 24 and 26 has held as under:

¶54

"14. Before we go to the facts of the case, it is necessary to consider what precisely is the nature of the burden which rests on the prosecution in an application for cancellation of bail. Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove by a mathematical certainty or even beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses have turned hostile because they are won over by the accused? We think not. The issue of cancellation of bail can only arise in criminal cases, but that does not mean that every incidental matter in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like the guilt of the accused. Whether an accused is absconding and therefore his property can be attached under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whether a search of person or premises was taken as required by the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, whether a confession is recorded in strict accordance with the requirements of Section 164 of the Code and whether a fact was discovered in consequence of information received

¶55

¶56

from an accused as required by Section 27 of the Evidence Act are all matters which fall peculiarly within the ordinary sweep of criminal trials. But though the guilt of the accused in cases which involve the assessment of these facts has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, these various facts are not required to be proved by the same rigorous standard. Indeed, proof of facts by preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case is not foreign to criminal jurisprudence because, in cases where the statute raises a presumption of guilt as, for example, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused is entitled to rebut that presumption by proving his defence by a balance of probabilities. He does not have to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.

¶57

15. xxx

¶58

10 -

16. xxx

17. xxx

18. xxx

19. xxx

20. xxx

21. xxx

22. xxx

23. xxx

24. Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction on the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII be arrested and committed to custody. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process. We might as well wind up the courts and bolt their doors against all than permit a few to ensure that justice shall not be done.

¶68

25. xxx

¶69

11 -

¶70

26. But avoidance of undue hardship or harassment is the quintessence of judicial process. Justice, at all times and in all situations, has to be tempered by mercy, even as against persons who attempt to tamper with its processes. The apprehension of the prosecution is that 'Maruti witnesses' are likely to be won over. The instances discussed by us are also confined to the attempted tampering of Maruti witnesses like Yadav and Charan Singh, though we have excluded Charan Singh's complaint from our consideration. Since the appellant's counsel has assured us that the prosecution will examine the Maruti witnesses immediately and that their evidence will occupy no more than a month, it will be enough to limit the cancellation of respondent's bail to that period. We hope and trust that no unfair advantage will be taken of our order by stalling the proceedings or by asking for a stay on some pretext or the other. If that is done, the arms of law shall be long enough. Out of abundant caution, we reserve liberty to the State to apply to the High Court, if necessary, but only if strictly necessary. We are hopeful that the State too will take our order in its true spirit."

¶71

Thus, the prosecution needs to establish the fact

¶72

that the accused has tried to influence or threaten a

¶73

12 -

¶74

witness, on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

¶75

In the instant case, when the matter was investigated by the local police, police report was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6. However, subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to CBI and supplementary police reports have been filed and accused Nos.7 to 21 have been included and it is alleged that the local police have tried to shield real assailants/conspirators and Police Officers including the petitioner herein have been alleged of shielding the accused. This prima facie gives rise to an apprehension that the investigation is politically influenced. Further, the bail granted to sitting MLA (accused No.15), accused Nos.16 and 9 have been cancelled. It also shows that the accused are active in trying to influence the witnesses.

¶76

13 -

¶77

However, in the instant case, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he tried to influence the evidence of CW-42, whose evidence is already over in the criminal case. The same is not corroborated by any independent investigation by the Police or by other documents other than a bare complaint of CW-42. In the course of the arguments, it is alleged that the petitioner may try to influence the witnesses of other Police Officers as the petitioner himself is a Police Officer. Mere apprehension is not sufficient to cancel the bail. Under the said circumstances, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has not established that the conditions of the bail have been violated by the petitioner on preponderance of probabilities. The trial court erred in holding it otherwise.

¶78

Hence, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶81

14 -

¶82

(ii) The impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82) in Special C.C.No.565/2021, wherein the bail granted in favour of accused No.19 (the petitioner herein) is cancelled, is hereby set aside;

¶83

(iii) It is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail and the conditions imposed on him while granting the bail earlier stands;

¶84

(iv) If the petitioner were to violate any of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail once again;

¶85

(v) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶86

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶87

hkh.

Channakeshava B Tingarikar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channakeshava B Tingarikar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Suresh. N. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijayakrishna M Vs the State

Sri. Pramod Shivashankar Vs Smt. Vaishnavi

Sri Nagesh.S.N. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sanjiva R Vs the State of Karnataka