Sugath Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17.01.2026 IN SC.NO.260/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 498(a), 323, 504, 307, 114, 506 AND 342, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT OF HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 17.01.2026 passed in SC No.260/2023 by which, the concerned Court cancels the bail of the petitioners that was granted.

¶28

Heard Sri. Lethif B, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. B N Jagadeesha, Addl.SPP for respondent No.1/State.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:10973 CRL.P No. 2742 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioners gets embroiled in crime

¶33

No.30/2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 506, 498A, 504, 307, 323, 114, 342 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The

¶34

father and the son who are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively secure anticipatory bail on two different dates i.e. on 15.05.2023 and 13.06.2023. A charge sheet comes to be filed by the police on 26.06.2023 for the afore-cited offences.

¶35

On a particular day, i.e. on 17.01.2026, when the petitioners were not present before the Court, the complainant i.e. the wife of petitioner No.1 is said to have moved an application through the Public Prosecutor seeking cancellation of bail. The Court without even hearing the cancellation of bail and on the score that the husband that is the petitioner is harassing on the complainant and believing the words of wife as truth, by impugned order, cancels the bail of the petitioners. The order of the concerned Court is not only illegal, but the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10973 CRL.P No. 2742 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

concerned Sessions Judge appears to have blissfully ignored rudimentary principles of law that, while bail is to be cancelled, either it should be through a miscellaneous application separately filed for cancellation of bail or even if it is to be cancelled, the basic principles of natural justice will have to be followed, as bail once granted, cannot be cancelled without hearing the person who has set his liberty on grant of bail, be it anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the case would be. Therefore, the order of cancellation of bail without hearing these petitioners is on the face of it illegal and depicts gross ignorance of law, on the part of the concerned Court. Therefore, the order is rendered unsustainable and the unsustainability of it, leads to its obliteration.

¶39

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10973 CRL.P No. 2742 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The order dated 17.01.2026, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in S.C.No.260/2023, stands quashed.

¶46

The petitioners shall continue to have the benefit of the anticipatory bail so granted in favour of the petitioners.

¶47

Liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file an application seeking cancellation of the bail, if situation warrants, which shall be considered in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observation made in the course of the order.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶50

SSD List No.: 4 Sl No.: 3

Sugath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugath v. the 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

Ratnakar Manja Poojari Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja G Vs State by

Sri Nagegowda M R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hemant Aggarwal Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Subham Jobanputra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venugopal B C Vs the State of Karnataka