Karnataka High Court
Sri. Yogesh Desai vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320
CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100322 OF 2026
(439(2) OF Cr.PC/483(3) OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI YOGESH DESAI S/O. MANOHAR DESAI,
OCC: ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.930, 16TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST. BANGALORE-65.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNASHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI KATRAIAH B. PRASADIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ALWANDI P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI RAGHAVENDRA DESAI S/O. MANOHAR DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KAVALOOR VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by TALUK & DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
PRATIBHA M PATIL
...RESPONDENTS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
Dharwad Bench
SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI AND
SRI ARUNKUMAR M. MAGADI, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 (2) OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.483(3) OF BNSS, 2023)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CANCEL THE
BAIL AND SET ASIDE THE BAIL GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31ST
DECEMBER 2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN S.C.NO.67/2022 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE A FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307, 302, 109 R/W.
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25, 27 (2)(3) 30 OF ARMS
ACT ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.89/2022 OF ALWONDI P.S.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320
CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner/complainant, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of bail granted by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal dated 31.12.2025 in SC No.67/2022, wherein respondent No.2/accused No.1 is facing offences under Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25, 27(2)(3) and 30 of Arms Act.
2. It is the brief case of prosecution that the petitioner/complainant, respondent No.2/accused No.1 and the deceased are children of Manohar Desai and are own brothers. There is dispute with regard to immovable properties. It is alleged that respondent No.2/accused No.1 in order to usurp the entire property, hatched a plan to -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR eliminate his own brothers and took out a rifle, which is in his brothers' name and shot at the complainant; however, the complainant survived, but the bullet was fired at the right side of the neck of the deceased. He also assaulted him with a chopper on the hind portion of his head. The complainant fell on the ground unconscious. Due to the bullet fired from the rifle, the deceased died; therefore, as explained in detail in the complaint, a crime is registered for the offences stated above.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials made available to this Court at this stage.
4. Learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to accused No.1 on 31.12.2025. Sri. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petition is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.1, as there are no reasons to grant bail to -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR accused No.1 considering the gravity of the offences alleged. Further submitted that this Court previously, on two occasions, rejected the bail petitions of accused No.1 considering the seriousness and gravity involved in the case, but the learned Sessions Judge, on the guise of medical reasons has granted bail to respondent No.2/accused No.1 without any reasons.
5. The medical reasons stated are that respondent No.2/accused No.1 is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure, which are common ailments and these can be treated in jail itself and are not grounds for granting bail to respondent No.2/accused No.1. Hence, submitted that the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.1 is against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order at Paragraph No.12 that though on merits of the case, accused No.1 has not made out any ground to grant bail, the grounds for bail are only confined -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR to medical condition. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge is having consciousness about the gravity of the offences committed by respondent No.2/accused No.1 and opined that accused No.1 is not entitled on merits, but has granted bail on medical grounds, that too without there being any cogent medical reasons and granted bail. Therefore, submitted that the order of granting bail is illegal and unjustified; hence, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of granting bail, the present petition is filed.
7. Further submitted that this petition is not filed for cancellation of bail on the reason of non-violation of conditions of bail, but at the very threshold questioning the legality and propriety the order of grant of bail, the instant petition is filed. Further submitted that when respondent No.2/accused No.1 is taking contention that he is suffering from ailments, then it is his burden to prove that on medical grounds he is entitled for bail, but respondent No.2/accused No.1 has not produced any material to show that he is suffering from serious ailments and that the treatment is -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR not available at the sub-jail and granted bail, but in this regard, there is absolutely no medical records produced by respondent No.2/accused No.1 so as to get entitlement of benefit of bail. Therefore, without considering these aspects, the order of granting bail by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse, illegal and unjustified.
8. Further submitted that the order of grant of bail is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the grant of bail to the accused in a serious case, as involved in the present case.
9. Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/complainant in support of his arguments, places reliance on the following judgments:
a) Y VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER1 (State of Rajasthan and another case)
b) ASHOK DHANKAD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER2 (Ashok Dhankad's case) 1 (2022) 9 SCC 269 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR
c) STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SRI DARSHAN ETC.3 (Darshan's case)
10. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State submitted that the Sessions Court ought not to have granted bail to accused No.1/respondent No.2. The order of grant of bail by the Sessions Court is perverse and submitted that the complainant has rightly filed this petition questioning the legality and propriety of the order; therefore, learned HCGP prayed to allow the petition and set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/accused No.1 vehemently submitted that accused No.1 is suffering from serious ailments of diabetes, blood pressure and chest pain and for this, medical treatment is not available in the sub-jail. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly granted bail to accused No.1. Further submitted that granting of bail is rule and jail is exception and considering the medical 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1960 3 2025 SCC Online SC 1702 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR condition of accused No.1, the Sessions Court has already granted bail to accused No.1, which needs no interference. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
12. Firstly, the matter is to be considered in brief with regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against accused No.1. Accused No.1, the complainant and the deceased are own brothers. The father of these three is the owner of many landed properties. Accused No.1 had hatched a conspiracy along with his wife and other accused to siphon off all the properties in his name and accordingly has taken a rifle and targeted the complainant and fired at him, but the complainant escaped; however, the bullet hit the deceased, who is the own brother of the complainant and accused No.1 and the deceased died on the spot.
13. Further, it is alleged that accused No.1 had assaulted on the head of the complainant and due to which the complainant fell on the ground unconscious; therefore, it is the case of prosecution that accused No.1, with an -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR intention to siphon off the entire property in his name had hatched a conspiracy along with other accused and committed the offences alleged.
14. When this being the gravity of the offences alleged, then while granting discretionary relief of bail has to be exercised sparingly and by keeping judicial pronouncements in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Questioning the order of grant of bail on its legality and propriety is different from seeking cancellation of bail granted. Here, the petitioner/complainant is questioning the order of grant of bail on its legality and propriety on the ground as the order is not sustainable in the eye of law and does not fit in the category of consideration for grant of bail, as per the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases.
16. The learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to accused No.1 had clearly opined in the order that on merits
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR of considering the petition for bail, accused No.1 does not have merits for grant of bail. This observation can be found at Paragraph No.12 in the impugned order, but the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail only on the ground of medical condition of accused No.1. Hence, the order of grant of bail to accused No.1 is not on merits of the bail petition, but the reasoning is confined only to medical reasons. Whether the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail on medical grounds is legal or suffers from perversity or whether the reasons given are misconceived is a question for consideration in this petition.
17. Admittedly, respondent No.2/accused No.1 has not produced any medical records to show what serious ailments accused No.1 is suffering from. It is burden on accused No.1 to produce medical records to show in what way he is entitled for regular bail on medical reasons by showing that if he is not enlarged on bail, then there would be threat to his life because of these serious ailments, but respondent No.2/accused No.1 has not produced any
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR material before the Court to show what serious ailment he is suffering from so as to entitle him for grant of bail by the Court.
18. Learned Sessions Judge has simply observed that accused No.1 is suffering from back pain and kidney problem and also suffering from diabetes and blood pressure. Hence, he was admitted to the VIMS Hospital at Ballari for higher treatment and therefore he is in medication. Further, it is observed that accused No.1 has suffered injury on right little toe and apprehends that if not timely treated, it may lead to gangrene and amputation of tow/right foot. These are the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to accused No.1.
19. As stated above, accused No.1/respondent No.2 has not placed any medical records to show on what serious ailment he is suffering and if the bail is not granted, in what way it affects his life; absolutely in this regard, there is no medical record produced by respondent No.2/accused No.1.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR However, the learned HCGP has produced medical records maintained by the authorities of the sub-jail pertaining to respondent No.2/accused No.1 when he was in custody. The medical records produced by the authorities of sub-jail i.e., on 13.05.2025, it is observed that there is a wound over the right little toe, but what is the nature of injury and whether it leads gangrene if not treated in time, absolutely there is no report in this regard.
20. Further, the diabetes and blood pressure are common ailments, which can be treated in the jail itself as every jail has facility of visiting medical doctors and in case of urgency, there is infrastructural facility to shift to higher treatment, but in this case, there is no such seriousness of illness is found on the part of accused No.1. Further, the medical records produced by the learned HCGP, a copy of ECG report is made available to this Court, but it is tracing of ECG only. There is no report as to what is the result of ECG, whether there is any chest pain and whether he needs higher treatment for chest-related pain, nothing is found in
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR the medical records. In this regard, if accused No.1/respondent No.2 is suffering from any serious chest pain and has taken treatment at a higher centre, then it is his duty to produce the medical records to show that he is having a serious chest ailment, but as above stated, accused No.1 has not placed medical records in this regard. On the other hand, medical records produced by the learned HCGP prima facie show that accused No.1 is not suffering from any serious ailment to be treated at higher centres.
21. The medical records maintained by the authorities of sub-jail pertaining to accused No.1 are only prescriptions of medicines of diabetes and blood pressure. Hence, in absence of any material on record showing any serious ailment being suffered by accused No.1, granting bail on medical grounds is not correct.
22. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law while entertaining bail on medical grounds in the case of Darshan (supra) at
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR Paragraph No.(C) of 22.3., 22.3.1., 22.3.2., 22.3.3., 22.3.4., 22.3.5., 22.3.6., observed as follows:
"(C) Bail obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds 22.3. The bail order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st respondent/A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated 22.3.1. This Court has consistently held that bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions. [Refer: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh M.N. v. State of Gujarat, (supra)].
22.3.2. The discharge summary dated 28.11.2024 issued by the hospital, mentions that A2 is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG surgery in the future. However, the report does not indicate:
any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail. 22.3.3. In Puran v. Rambilas (supra), this Court held that "if if is shown that a party obtained bail by misrepresentation or fraud, or by suppressing material facts, such bail is liable to be cancelled on that ground alone". Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Narendra Nath Sinha, it was observed that "bail obtained by concealing facts or misleading the court vitiates the order, as it defeats the interest of justice". 22.3.4. Contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 has made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release.
This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR 22.3.5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail". The burden to prove such necessity lies on the accused.
22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal."
23. Considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above stated, the grant of bail by the Sessions Court is on misrepresentation of medical grounds. As it is seen from the records produced by the learned HCGP, accused No.1 is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure, which are common ailments and for which medical treatment is available in sub-jail itself.
24. Further, there is a wound on the right little toe and the observation that if timely medical treatment is not provided, it may lead to gangrene is also misconceived and
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR upon misrepresentation of the said fact, the order of bail is granted.
25. Upon considering the medical records produced by the learned HCGP, there is no mentioning in the medical records maintained by the jail authorities that the wound was stated to be severe, to the extent that, if treatment is not given, it could lead to gangrene or amputation of right leg. However, it appears that, on the basis of such misrepresentation of medical grounds, accused No.1 obtained bail. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has made out sufficient grounds to contend that the order granting bail was obtained on misrepresentation and does not pass the test of legality and propriety.
26. Further, on two earlier occasions, accused No.1 had approached this Court seeking for grant of bail in Crl.P.No.103733/2022 and Crl.P.No.102362/2024. But this Court by orders dated 08.12.2022 and 27.08.2024
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR respectively, has rejected the bail application of accused No.1 taking into consideration the nature of offence and the existence of a prima facie case against accused No.1. Considering the prima facie materials available at this stage, accused No.1 was having a motive to eliminate his own brothers and had prepared himself with a rifle and billhook and other deadly weapons, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence.
27. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that this Court had earlier rejected the bail petitions on merits, it is significant to note that the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order has observed that accused No.1 does not have sufficient grounds for grant of bail on merits, but proceeded to grant bail solely on medical grounds. As discussed above, the reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be misconceived, as it is based on the misrepresented medical facts.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR
28. It is well settled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law regarding consideration of bail in serious nature of allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VS. ASHIS CHATTERJEE4, has laid down the guidelines as per principles of law for consideration while deciding an application for bail, which reads as follows:
9. xxxxxx
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
4 (2010) 14 SCC 496
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK DHANKAD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER5, at paragraph Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19, has held has follows:
"16. xxxxx
16. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 513, para 12) "12. We have referred to certain principles to be kept in mind while granting bail, as has been laid down by this Court from time to time. It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order 5 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1690
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court."
17. In the present case, it is necessary to determine whether the High Court while granting bail to Respondent 2-accused has properly exercised its discretion under Section 439 CrPC by following various parameters laid down by this Court. A bare perusal of the impugned order [Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 3499] passed by the High Court does not suggest that the Court has considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail."
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR
17. A division bench of this Court in Meena Devi v. State of U.P.6, had observed to similar effect:
"26. At the cost of repetition, it may be highlighted that the considerations that weigh with the appellate court when called upon to examine the correctness of an order granting bail is not on the same footing when it comes to examining an application moved for cancellation of bail. The yardstick for testing the correctness of an order granting bail is whether the court below has exercised its discretion in an improper or arbitrary manner thereby vitiating the said order. When it comes to assessing an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances or any violation of the conditions of bail imposed on the person who has been accorded such a relief."
(emphasis supplied)
18. More recently, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, while setting aside the bail granted to a person accused of an offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 of the IPC and Section 3 & 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022, placed reliance on an earlier 6 Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2022 [Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5102/2019]
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR decision of this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem8 and observed:
"8.3 The discussion made in Ajwar v. Waseem3 by a coordinate Bench of this Court (which included one of us, i.e., Amanullah J.) is on point. The relevant paragraphs are as under:--
"Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24) "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court."
Considerations for setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above."
30. Therefore, the order of granting bail by the learned Sessions Judge is completely perverse and does not pass the test of legality and propriety. As discussed above, the bail was granted on misrepresentation of medical grounds and is found to be misconceived one. Accordingly,
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR accused No.1 is not entitled to the liberty of releasing him on bail.
31. Furthermore, the complainant has alleged that he and other prosecution witnesses are under threat if accused No.1 release on bail. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the deposition of PW.1 (the complainant), wherein it is recorded that accused No.1 threatened the life of complainant when he appeared before the Court to give evidence. This prima facie indicates intimidation of witness, which constitutes an additional ground for cancellation of bail.
32. In view of the above reasons, the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires interference and reconsideration. Accordingly, the said order granting bail is liable to be set aside.
33. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 31.12.2025 passed in S.C.No.67/2022 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, granting bail to accused No.1/respondent No.2, namely Sri. Raghavendra Desai son of Manohar Desai, who is facing offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27(2) & (3) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, is hereby set aside.
c) Accused No.1 is directed to surrender himself before the Sessions Court in which S.C.No.67/2022 is pending and Sessions Court shall take him to judicial custody.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6320 CRL.P No. 100322 of 2026 HC-KAR
d) The learned Sessions Judge is directed to secure the presence of accused No.1, in case accused No.1 fails to surrender before the Court and ensure that he remains in judicial custody till decision is taken in the Sessions Case No.67/2022.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA para Nos.1 to 25 PMP para Nos.26 to end CT-AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19