Bail Cannot Be Cancelled on Mere Apprehension or Unverified Complaint: Karnataka High Court Reinstates Bail

“Tampering Must Be Proved on Preponderance of Probabilities—Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt” - In a case charged with political overtones and implications of police collusion, the Karnataka High Court restored the bail of Accused No.19, a former police officer, who had been implicated in the 2016 murder of BJP leader Yogesh Gouda, by setting aside the trial court’s order that had cancelled his bail based on a solitary witness complaint.

Justice M.I. Arun held that cancellation of bail must be based on concrete evidence or at least a preponderance of probabilities, not vague allegations or uncorroborated claims, especially where the liberty of an individual is at stake.

“The prosecution has not established that the conditions of the bail have been violated by the petitioner on preponderance of probabilities. Mere apprehension is not sufficient to cancel the bail.” [Para 13]

Allegation of Witness Tampering Found Unsubstantiated—Bail Cancellation Order Quashed

The impugned order dated 15.09.2025, passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, had cancelled the bail of the petitioner (accused No.19) based solely on a complaint dated 25.06.2025 from CW-42 (Shivananda B. Salagatti), alleging that the accused approached him during a domestic inquiry and tried to influence his statement. However, the High Court noted:

“The only allegation made against the petitioner is that he tried to influence the evidence of CW-42, whose evidence is already over in the criminal case. The same is not corroborated by any independent investigation or supporting documents other than a bare complaint.” [Para 13]

Noting that the petitioner was already on bail since 22.10.2021 and had adhered to the conditions imposed—which included non-interference with witnesses—the Court held that the threshold for cancelling bail had not been met.

State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi Reiterated: Balance of Probabilities Is Sufficient for Bail Cancellation, But Must Still Be Proved

Drawing extensively from the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, the Court reiterated that:

“Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary… The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.” [Para 10 quoting Sanjay Gandhi]

However, in the absence of even this level of proof, and given that CW-42’s testimony had already been recorded in full, the Court found the cancellation order legally unsustainable.

Political Sensitivity Acknowledged, But Rule of Law Paramount

The case has attracted significant public attention due to the alleged involvement of political figures, including a sitting MLA (accused No.15), and the initial police investigation being transferred to the CBI due to concerns of bias and cover-up. The CBI had eventually filed a supplementary chargesheet naming 21 accused.

While acknowledging the broader backdrop of political interference and previous instances where bails of co-accused had been cancelled due to witness tampering, the Court made a crucial distinction:

“In the instant case, unlike in the case of accused Nos. 15, 16, and 9, there is no credible material to suggest that the petitioner attempted to misuse his liberty. Mere reference to his prior role as an investigating officer or apprehensions about potential influence over police witnesses cannot justify cancellation.” [Para 12–13]

Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed to Vague Allegations—Court Cautions Against Setting Dangerous Precedents

The judgment strongly underscored the fundamental value of liberty in criminal jurisprudence:

“Liberty of an individual is of highest importance... unless it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the conditions imposed while granting the bail have been violated, bail should not be cancelled.” [Para 8]

The Court warned that allowing cancellation on the basis of unverified letters or complaints could lead to a dangerous precedent, opening the floodgates for malicious attempts to derail bail protections:

“If bail were to be cancelled on a mere letter written by one of the prosecution witnesses, then in that event, bail granted to the accused in almost all criminal cases will have to be cancelled.” [Para 8]

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and set aside the bail cancellation order, directing that:

“The petitioner be released on bail and the conditions imposed on him while granting the bail earlier shall stand. If the petitioner were to violate any of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail once again.” [Final Order]

The ruling not only reaffirms the procedural safeguards surrounding bail under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but also sets a strong precedent for courts to be cautious in mechanically cancelling bail without substantive and verifiable proof.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025