Dismissed¶48

Sri Mahesh S/O Mudakappa Balareddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.P/104694/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation - S.439(2) Cr.P.C. / S.483(2) BNSS 2023 - High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025 - Crime No. 183/2025, Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi - BNS Ss.109, 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2) - non-application of mind in bail order - discretionary nature of grant of bail - no interference absent palpable error - merits not revisitable in cancellation petition - petition dismissed with liberty on breach of bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

An application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is not an appeal against the grant of bail; however, courts are not helpless in cancelling bail where there is a threat to prosecution witnesses, repetition of offences, violation of bail conditions, or risk that the accused will not be available for trial (jumping bail). ¶34

Sri Mahesh S/O Mudakappa Balareddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted to respondent No.2/Accused No.1 by the learned Sessions Judge ought to be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of non-application of mind and non-consideration of prosecution material by the granting court. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the bail-granting order, the learned trial Judge had discussed the material placed by the prosecution, negating the petitioner's contention of non-application of mind.

¶40

Key takeaways

Grant of bail is a discretionary order and should not usually be interfered with unless the discretion has been palpably wrongly exercised, per settled principles of law.ratio¶40
No complaint of threat to witnesses, repetition of offences, breach of conditions or jumping bail was forthcoming against the second respondent, and no compelling reasons were found; the request for cancellation of bail was therefore turned down.ratio¶41
If the second respondent fails to adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge while granting bail, it remains open to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh with a prayer for cancellation of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 104694 of 2025 (under S.439(2) Cr.P.C., filed as S.483(2) BNSS, 2023), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 13 January 2026 (Single Judge: V. Srishananda, J.). The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/Accused No.1 by the learned Sessions Judge on 31/10/2025 in Crl. Misc. No. 1329/2025 in Crime No. 183/2025 (Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi; alleged offences under Ss.109, 115(2), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) BNS; pending before JMFC II, Belagavi), alleging non-application of mind and non-consideration of prosecution material. Holding: (i) an application under S.439(2) is not an appeal over grant of bail, though bail may be cancelled on grounds such as threat to prosecution witnesses, repetition of offences, violation of bail conditions, or the accused jumping bail; (ii) the trial Judge's bail order contained discussion of the prosecution material, so the plea of non-application of mind failed; (iii) grant of bail being discretionary, it should not usually be interfered with absent palpably wrong exercise of discretion; (iv) no such compelling reasons existed and cancellation was declined; (v) the Court refrained from examining the merits, as that would amount to reviewing the bail order, impermissible under S.439(2); liberty reserved to move for cancellation if bail conditions are breached. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104694 OF 2025 (439(2)(CR.PC)/483(3)(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MAHESH S/O MUDAKAPPA BALAREDDY AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O JEEVAPUR VILLAGE, POST. BENAKATTI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591126.

¶8

&PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINAND ARAVIND PACHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD 580011.

¶12

SRI. BHARMA S/O MOHAN JUVEKAR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL ENGINEER, R/O. H.NO.289, CROSS NO.3NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

&RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶15

Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka,Dharwad Bench

¶16

SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2/ACCUSED NO. 1 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 1329/2025 IN CRIME NO. 183/2025 BY THE RESPONDENT MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109, 115(2), 189(2), 190 AND 191(2) OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II, BELAGAVI.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader-Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Joshna P. Dhanave, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶25

The petition under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 8the Cr.P.C.9 for short) with the following prayer:

¶26

<WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court to cancel the ball granted to the Respondents No. 2/Accused No. 1 vide order dated 31/10/2025 in Crl. Misc.No.1329/2025 in Crime No.183/2025 by the respondent Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 109, 115(2), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) of BNS, pending on the file of JMFC II, Belagavi, in the interest of justice.=

¶27

Petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The same is challenged before this Court stating that there is a non-application of mind and non-consideration of the material on record placed by the prosecution in the proper

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

perspective, resulting in miscarriage of justice in enlarging the second respondent on bail.

¶32

The same is opposed by the counsel for second respondent and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶33

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶34

It is to be noted that an application filed under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall not be treated as an appeal over the grant of bail. However, the Courts are not helpless in cancelling the bail if it is brought to the notice of the Court that there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses, or if there is a repetition of the offences committed by the petitioner, or if there is any violation of the conditions that have been imposed by the Court granting the bail. One such condition would be whether the person who has the benefit of the bail would not be available for trial, or in other words, has jumped the bail.

¶35

No such complaint is forthcoming against the second respondent in the case on hand. On the contrary, the defacto complainant is contending that there is a serious injury caused to the defacto complainant, which has been ignored by the learned

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:331 CRL.P No. 104694 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

trial judge while passing the order granting the bail to the second respondent.

¶40

On perusal of the order granting bail, there is discussion with regard to the material placed by the prosecution by the learned trial Judge. In other words, grant of bail is a discretionary order and unless it is palpably a wrong usage of discretion, the grant of bail should not usually be interfered with as per the settled of principles of law.

¶41

In the case on hand, no such compelling reasons are found. Therefore, the request for seeking cancellation of the bail needs to be turned down.

¶42

However, if the second respondent fails to adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge while granting the bail, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Court with a prayer for seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶43

Even though much is argued about the merits of the matter, this Court refrains from considering the same, as it would amount to reviewing or reconsidering the order of grant of bail, which is impermissible under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶44