IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.51352/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI NITHIN KUMAR S/O UMANATH KULAL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT RAYAPPA KODI, AMTOOR VILLAGE, KARINGANA, BANTWAL-574219.
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING – BENGALURU-560001.
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP.) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C,1908, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2019 IN SC.NO.209/2017 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE EXEMPTION APPLICATION, CANCELLING THE BAIL AND ISSUING NBW AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM HIS PERSONAL APPEARANCE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2019 whereby the trial court has been pleased to cancel the bail granted to accused No.9, 12 and 15 and further was pleased to issue NBW after rejecting the exemption application preferred on their behalf.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court could not have cancelled the bail and at the most the trial court could have ordered NBW after rejecting the exemption application. He would further contend that it has been mandated by this court that cancellation of bail ought to be preceded by an opportunity to the aggrieved party. He would further place reliance the order of this court in Crl.P 6373/2016.
4. The learned High Court Govt. Pleader would fairly submit that the cancellation of bail ought to be preceded by an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party to show cause as to why the order enlarging the petitioner on bail ought not to be cancelled. It is further fairly submitted that cancellation of bail can be only on an application for the said relief and the court has no authority to review the order of bail granted by it.
Hence, in view of the fair submissions made by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2019 in so far as it pertains to cancellation of the bail is set-aside. Petition is ordered accordingly.
It is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application for recalling the NBW.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE