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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Criminal Petitions disposed of at this stage without deciding cancellation of anticipatory bail; liberty reserved to the petitioners to revive their remedy / seek recall of the order in the event Crl.P No.272/2026 is dismissed or any adverse order is passed against respondent No.2.

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 ought to be cancelled, the petitioner contending that it was granted without affording the de-facto complainant/victim an opportunity of hearing (contrary to Jagjeet Singh), that the offences alleged are serious, and that investigation was in progress when bail was granted. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the contentions urged regarding non-hearing of the victim or the nature of the offence, the Court held that the present Criminal Petitions do not survive for consideration at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

When the criminal proceedings are stayed (interim stay of proceedings in Spl.C.No.5040/2025 granted in Crl.P No.272/2026), the question of cancellation of anticipatory bail, being incidental to such proceedings, does not arise for consideration at this stage.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to revive their remedy depending upon the outcome of the quashing proceedings, i.e., to seek recall of the order in the event Criminal Petition No.272/2026 is dismissed or any adverse order is passed against respondent No.2.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Victim (de-facto complainant)'s criminal petitions under S. 439(2) Cr.PC (filed under S. 483(3) BNSS) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused (respondent No.2): (i) order dated 03.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.513/2025 (Cr.No.41/2025, Hassan Women P.S.) by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan; and (ii) order dated 25.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.499/2025 (Cr.No.44/2025, Dakshina Kannada Women P.S.) by the VI Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, D.K Mangaluru. Petitioner contended the bail was granted without hearing the victim, contrary to the law laid down in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu (2022 Supreme (SC) 326), that the offences were serious and investigation was in progress. Respondent No.2 had already filed Crl.P No.272/2026 under S. 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.5040/2025 (charge sheet having been filed), and this Court had granted an interim stay thereof. Held: when proceedings are stayed, cancellation of anticipatory bail, being incidental to such proceedings, does not arise for consideration at this stage; without going into the merits (non-hearing of victim / nature of offence), the petitions do not survive and are disposed of; liberty reserved to the petitioners to revive their remedy / seek recall if Crl.P No.272/2026 is dismissed or any adverse order is passed against respondent No.2.

NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12306 OF 2025

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12323 OF 2025

IN CRL.P No. 12306/2025

BETWEEN:

THE VICTIM D/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 302.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY

LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

SACHIN N.R S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VISHWESHWARAIAH EXTENTION, HASSAN NAGARA, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R.,HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MAHESH Y.L.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.513/2025 (CR.NO.41/2025 REGISTERED BY HASSAN WOMEN P.S) ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN CANCEL THE BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND COMMIT HIM TO THE CUSTODY.

IN CRL.P NO. 12323/2025

BETWEEN:

THE VICTIM D/O RAMU D AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI HASSAN TOWN,HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 302.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAKSHNINA KANNADA WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUTTUR SUB- DIVSION REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

SACHIN N.R S/O LATE RAJU,

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VISHWESHWARAIAH EXTENTION, HASSAN NAGARA, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R.,HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MAHESH Y.L.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCELLATION OF THE BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED PASSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.499/2025 (CR.NO.44/2025 REGISTERED BY DAKSHINA KANNADA WOMEN P.S) ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K MANGALURU AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND COMMIT HIM TO THE CUSTODY.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

These Criminal Petitions are filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 239 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 483(3) of BNSS) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

HC-KAR

Criminal Petition No.12306/2025 arises out of the order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.513/2025 (Crime No.41/2025 of the Hassan Women Police Station) on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (for short 'the trial Court').

Criminal Petition No.12323/2025 arises out of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.499/2025 (Crime No.44/2025 of the Puttur Women Police Station) on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for short 'the trial Court').

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that the trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the de-facto complainant. The orders are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in JAGJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs ASHISH MISHRA @

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

HC-KAR

MONU AND ANOTHER¹ ( Jagjeet Singh ), which mandates hearing of the victim. It is submitted that the offences alleged are serious in nature and the investigation is still in progress at the time of grant of bail. The Trial Court has failed to apply judicial mind while granting anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet has already been filed in Spl.C.No.5040/2025. Respondent No.2 has filed Criminal Petition No.272/2026 seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This Court has granted an interim stay of further proceedings in Spl.C.No.5040/2025. In view of the stay of the proceedings, the question of cancellation of anticipatory bail does not arise at this stage.

Undisputedly, respondent No.2 had already approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.272/2026 seeking quashing of proceedings and this Court has

1 2022 Supreme(SC) 326

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

HC-KAR

granted an interim order staying further proceeding in Spl.C.No.5040/2025. In light of the said stay order, continuation of criminal proceedings is presently kept in abeyance. When the proceedings are stayed, question of cancellation of anticipatory bail, which is incidental to such proceedings, does not arise for consideration at this stage.

Therefore, without going to the merits of the contentions urged regarding non-hearing of the victim or nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that the present Criminal Petition do not survive for consideration at this stage. However, liberty deserves to be reserved to the petitioner to revive their remedy depending upon the outcome of the quashing of proceedings. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Criminal Petitions are disposed of .

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek recall of the order in the event the

NC: 2026:KHC:19282 CRL.P No. 12306 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12323 of 2025

7 -

HC-KAR

Criminal Petitions No.272/2026 is dismissed

or any adverse order is passed against respondent No.2.

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6