Dismissed¶44

Harshitha v. State of Karnataka

Bail cancellation – S.483(3) BNSS, 2023 r/w S.439(2) Cr.P.C

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026CRL.P/12246/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025; decided 08-07-2026; S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. Bail cancellation under Section 483(3) BNSS, 2023 read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C; regular bail granted in Crl.P.No.10334/2024 (Crime No.288/2024, Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangalore City; Sections 376 & 506 IPC); allegation of violation of Condition No.(c) and tampering with charge sheet witnesses/CW22; no FIR, only NCR registered; affidavit of witness alone insufficient; bail cancellation involves serious consequences; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to cancel respondent No.2's regular bail and to arrest and commit him to custody was rejected. ¶44

Harshitha Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to cancel respondent No.2's regular bail and to arrest and commit him to custody was rejected.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.10334 of 2024 should be cancelled on the ground that he violated Condition No.(c) and attempted to tamper with material charge sheet witnesses (including CW22).

¶24

Court's answer

Despite the submission that respondent No.2 tried to tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses and had approached CW22, sufficient material to prove such allegation was not found.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

On the petitioner's complaint to the Police, no FIR was registered; only an NCR was registered.

¶42

Key takeaways

CW22's affidavit stating that he was approached by respondent No.2 after enlargement on bail, by itself, cannot be a ground to cancel the regular bail.ratio¶42
Cancellation of bail involves serious consequences; unless the Court is completely satisfied that the accused released on bail has misused the bail order or violated the bail conditions, on mere allegations of attempting to tamper with prosecution witnesses his bail cannot be cancelled.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail cancellation - S.483(3) BNSS, 2023 r/w S.439(2) Cr.P.C - Defacto complainant sought cancellation of regular bail granted to the accused (respondent No.2) in Crl.P.No.10334/2024 arising out of Crime No.288/2024 of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangalore City (offences punishable under Sections 376 & 506 IPC), alleging violation of Condition No.(c) and an attempt to tamper with material charge sheet witnesses, including CW22. Held: (i) though it was submitted that respondent No.2 approached CW22, sufficient material to prove the tampering allegation was not found; (ii) on the petitioner's complaint only an NCR was registered, not an FIR; (iii) CW22's affidavit alone cannot be a ground to cancel regular bail; (iv) cancellation of bail involves serious consequences and cannot be ordered on mere allegations unless the Court is completely satisfied that the accused misused the bail order or violated the bail conditions. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34445 CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12246 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HARSHITHA D/O ASHWATHAIAH H M AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO. 51, 1ST CROSS KAIRUCHI HOTEL ROAD SANTHRUPTHI NAGAR J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SANDEEP S. SHAHAPUR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H.B. RANGANATH S/O BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.22/25, 3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, PUTTENAHALLI J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 030.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 (3)BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRL.P.NO.10334/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,506 OF IPC AND ORDER TO ARREST AND COMMIT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CUSTODY.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:34445 CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The defacto complainant is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 R/w Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent no.2 herein by this Court in Criminal Petition No.10334 of 2024 disposed of on 24.10.2024 in Crime No.288 of 2024 registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangalore City for offences punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 who was released on bail, has attempted to tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. He submits that, in this regard a police complaint was filed and a NCR case has been registered. He also submits that, CW22 who has been threatened by respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit before this Court. He submits that, since respondent no.2 has violated Condition No.(c) passed in Criminal Petition No.10334 of 2024, his bail is liable to be cancelled.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:34445 CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

This Court while granting regular bail to respondent no.2 herein in Criminal Petition No.10334 of 2024, in paragraph nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows:-

¶29

7. From a perusal of the material on record it is seen that, the petitioner was introduced to the first informant by her friend Arvind and the first informant who was in need of money for meeting the medical expenses of her uncle Krishnaprasad had sought financial assistance from the petitioner. The petitioner, who had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the first informant to meet the medical expenses of her uncle had asked the first informant to get an agreement of sale executed in his favour in respect of a house property belonging to Krishnaprasad, uncle of the first informant. Accordingly, an agreement was executed and under the said agreement, according to the first informant, a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was transferred to the account of the first informant's aunt.

¶30

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of sale agreement dated 07.12.2022 executed by Krishnaprasad in favour of the petitioner herein. Perusal of the said agreement would go to show that, sale price of the property belonging to Krishnaprasad was fixed at Rs.54 lakhs and out of the said Rs.54 lakhs a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was paid by the petitioner under a cheque bearing No.00002911 dated 07.12.2022 and another sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid in cash and the petitioner was required to pay balance

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:34445 CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

amount of Rs.14 lakhs within eleven months from the date of agreement. In the first information it is admitted that, the petitioner has subsequently paid another fum of Rs.15 lakhs in the month of April, 2023 and in addition to the same, he also has paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the aunt of the first informant in the month of January, 2023.

¶35

9. From the aforesaid it appears that the petitioner had paid the entire sale consideration in respect of the property which is subject matter of the sale agreement dated 07.12.2022 executed by Krishnaprasad, uncle of the first informant in favour of the petitioner. The first informant has belatedly filed first information dated 15.07.2024 making allegation against the petitioner that he has committed sexual assault on the victim lady on the guise of helping her financially. Though the alleged sexual assault was committed for the first time in the month of January, 2023, the first informant has belatedly submitted first information on 15.07.2024. The petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody from 16.07.2024. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed.

¶36

This petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 is

¶37

now filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.2 on the ground that, he has violated condition No.(c) imposed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.10334 of 2024. Though, it is submitted that, respondent no.2 has tried to

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:34445 CRL.P No. 12246 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses and he has approached CW22, sufficient material to prove such an allegation is not found.

¶42

Undisputedly, on the complaint made by petitioner to the Police, no FIR has been registered and on the other hand only NCR was registered. Merely for the reason that, CW22 has filed an affidavit stating that he was approached by respondent no.2, after he was enlarged on bail, that itself cannot be a ground to cancel the regular bail granted to the petitioner.

¶43

Cancellation of bail involves serious consequences and unless the Court is completely satisfied that the accused who is released on bail has either misused the bail order or has violated the bail conditions, on mere allegations that the accused has attempted to tamper with prosecution witnesses, his bail cannot be cancelled. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition lacks merits.

¶44

Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶46

NMS

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Harshitha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshitha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shakeel Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

K Lokesha Vs State of Karnataka

Ashique Kaniyan Kandi Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran Kumar Vs State by Soladevanahalli Police Station

Abhishekh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gajendra Vs State of Karnataka