Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi, Single Bench of Justice V. Srishananda held that a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is not maintainable under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the absence of compelling circumstances or violation of bail conditions. The Court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused, observing that bail once granted cannot be cancelled merely because the complainant disagrees with the discretionary order. The Court, however, reserved liberty to the petitioner to invoke supervisory jurisdiction in case of grave error in the bail order.

A criminal petition was filed before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of an order dated 3 May 2025 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir granting bail to an accused in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 137(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The case arose from a complaint lodged by the mother of a minor girl stating that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. The police registered Crime No.33/2025 at Gogi Police Station on 12 April 2025. During investigation, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the accused moved an application for regular bail before the Sessions Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Sessions Court after hearing the prosecution and the accused allowed the bail application on 3 May 2025, imposing conditions including marking attendance before the police station once in three weeks, refraining from threatening or alluring prosecution witnesses, and appearing before the investigating officer as and when required.

Aggrieved by the grant of bail, the complainant filed the present petition under Section 483(3) seeking cancellation of bail. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court erred in granting bail when investigation was still pending and that the offences alleged are heinous in nature involving sexual assault on a minor punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act with life imprisonment.

The petitioner argued that the Sessions Court ignored the prima facie material collected during investigation, including statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which established the offence. It was submitted that the bail order was contrary to settled principles of law and deserved to be set aside to ensure proper investigation and protection of the victim.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the bail order was a discretionary order passed after due consideration of facts and imposition of necessary conditions. It was argued that cancellation of bail requires compelling circumstances such as violation of bail conditions, which was absent in the present case. The counsel for the accused also opposed the petition, contending that the complainant was effectively seeking an appeal against the bail order which was impermissible.

Justice V. Srishananda observed “Even though an accused, who is alleged with heinous offence like Section 4 of the POCSO Act, ordinarily would not get an order of bail, grant of bail by the learned Sessions Judge with conditions if needs to be assailed, there must be compelling circumstances or violation of the conditions.”

The Court recorded “As a general rule, application seeking cancellation of bail is to be filed before the Court which granted bail, inasmuch as it is that Court which has exclusive knowledge of facts for grant of bail or rejection thereof.”

It was stated “Even though concurrent powers are vested in this Court along with the Special Court or the Sessions Court to grant or cancel the bail, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail.”

Justice Srishananda observed “Scheme of the statute does not provide for such an eventuality. Even in BNSS, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature so as to vest the power of either revision or appeal over the discretionary order of grant of bail.”

The Court recorded “Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 is retained in verbatim of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. If at all the legislature is of the opinion that even in case of a discretionary order, if no proper discretion is exercised by a Court, then such orders could also be subject matter of either revision or appeal, necessarily the legislature would have carved out such power in the higher Courts namely, the High Court as against the Sessions Court or the Special Court.”

It was stated “In the absence of any such power being vested in the higher Courts either under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 or any other provision of BNSS, 2023 and no such power being carved out in the POCSO Act as well, this Court is of the considered opinion that bail once granted cannot be cancelled just for asking.”

Justice Srishananda recorded “No doubt, if there is a grave and serious error that has been committed by the Court while granting the bail, same can be questioned under the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and by invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”

The Court concluded “Reserving such liberty for the petitioner/complainant, the present petition in the considered opinion of this Court is not maintainable.”

The Court directed that the criminal petition is dismissed.

Also Read: Kerala HC Seeks Focused Data And Police Action Plan On Student Drug Abuse | Slams Delays In Forensic And Prosecutor Appointments Affecting NDPS Trials

It was recorded that the present petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused is not maintainable in the absence of compelling circumstances or violation of bail conditions.

The Court stated that if there is any grave and serious error committed by the Sessions Court while granting bail, the same can be questioned by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It was directed that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law if any such circumstance arises.

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Sanjay A Patil, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt Arati Patil, High Court Government Pleader; Ashok B Mulage, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v Re State of Karnataka & Anr

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:3332

Case Number: CRL.P No. 200940 of 2025

Bench: Justice V. Srishananda