IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3986/2014 BETWEEN:
Sri.M.N.Yadiyurappa, S/o Sri.Nanjappa, Aged about 45 years R/o Marur Village, Narasandra Post, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, Pin-562 120.
…Petitioner (By Sri. N.K.Siddeswara, Advocate) AND:
1. Kadur Police, Magadi Taluk, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Smt.V.Thanuja, W/o M.N.Yadiyurappa, Aged about 28 years, R/o No.96, ‘H’ Block, Thunga Complex, K.S.R.P.Quarters, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034.
...Respondents (By Sri. G.Rajakumar, Advocate for R2 Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra SPP-II for R1) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the impugned order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Magadi in CC.No.149/2010 in canceling the bail bond for the petitioner.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Magadi Road, dated 23.06.2014 in CC.No.149/2010 whereby the learned Magistrate has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner herein (accused No.1) and has issued NBW against the petitioner. The Impugned order reads as under;
”PW-1 Thanjuja is filed complaint against accused No.1 in this case. Accused No.1 is the husband of PW-1 Thanuja. Her oral submission before the Court and contents of the complaint prima-facie shows threat to her which shows an violation of bail order and condition dated 09.04.2009. Under the above circumstance, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The bail & bond of accused No.1 is hereby cancelled, E/A filed by the counsel for accused No.1 is hereby rejected, issue NBW against accused No.1.”
2. From the above order it is clear that merely on the submission of the PW1-Thanuja and complaint lodged by her, without ascertaining the correctness or truth thereof, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to cancel the bail. Impugned order reveals that not even an opportunity was given to the accused No.1 to show cause or to put forth his submissions with regard to the allegations made thereunder. Learned Magistrate has not followed the basic principles of natural justice.
3. Merely on the basis of the allegations made by complainant or witnesses during the trial, the learned Magistrate could not have cancelled the bail without enquiring into the correctness or truth and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-accused No.1. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
4. With the above observations, the petition is allowed. The bail granted to the petitioner is restored. The learned Magistrate is at liberty to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint lodged by PW1, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SB