Once Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Violation, Subordinate Courts Cannot Reconsider: Karnataka High Court

“Judicial propriety demands that a person who misuses the liberty granted by the Apex Court must seek fresh indulgence from the Apex Court alone” – Karnataka High Court rejects bail plea in CBI probe matter

In a judgment reiterating the limits of judicial discretion for subordinate courts in bail matters, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail petition of Vinay Rajashekhrapppa Kulkarni, a sitting legislator and accused in a politically sensitive murder-conspiracy case, holding that once the Supreme Court has cancelled bail on the ground of violation of conditions, no court other than the Apex Court can grant bail again, unless such liberty is explicitly reserved.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav held: “When the Supreme Court has cancelled the bail on the ground of violation of conditions without reserving liberty, it would be against judicial propriety for any other court to reconsider and grant bail. The petitioner ought to have approached the Apex Court.”

“Change in Circumstances Is No Defence When Bail Is Cancelled for Misuse of Liberty”

The case arises from the 2016 murder of Yogish Goudar, in which the CBI has alleged a criminal conspiracy involving Kulkarni and several others, invoking charges under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC and the Arms Act. Kulkarni was initially granted bail by the Supreme Court on 11 August 2021, but that bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court itself on 6 June 2025, citing attempts by the accused to influence prosecution witnesses (PWs 25 and 26).

After surrendering post-cancellation, Kulkarni sought regular bail again before the Trial Court and then the High Court, asserting that most material witnesses had been examined and the circumstances had changed.

Rejecting this line of argument, the High Court ruled: “The ground of ‘change in circumstances’ may be a ground for reconsideration of an order rejecting bail, but would be of no avail where the bail is cancelled for violation of conditions. Once liberty is misused, the accused disentitles himself from seeking judicial discretion afresh.”

The Court clarified that "completion of witness examination or the absence of tampering possibilities are irrelevant" when bail is cancelled not on merits, but due to breach of conditions.

“Judicial Discipline Requires Respecting the Apex Court’s Intention and Order”

The Court placed emphasis on the nature of the cancellation order passed by the Supreme Court, pointing out that the Apex Court had not only cancelled the bail, but also directed expeditious trial, suggesting an intention to balance prolonged custody with speedy adjudication, rather than open the door to another bail plea in subordinate courts.

“The direction to complete the trial expeditiously would in fact indicate that there was the intention of the Apex Court to mitigate long incarceration by directing speedy trial. It is not for this Court to second-guess that balancing act,” the High Court observed.

“Vipin Kumar Does Not Apply Where Bail Was Cancelled for Breach”

Kulkarni’s counsel had relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P., arguing that even after bail is cancelled, a fresh bail application is maintainable. However, the High Court firmly distinguished that case:

“Vipin Kumar involved a situation where bail granted by a High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court on merits — not cancelled for violation. The ratio of Vipin Kumar cannot be extended to a case where the Supreme Court itself has cancelled bail due to breach of conditions.”

The Court drew a clear line between ‘setting aside’ a bail order (based on merits) and ‘cancellation’ (based on misuse):

“The distinction between reversal of an order of bail by a superior Court and cancellation of bail for violation of bail conditions is stark and must be maintained.”

“Parity With Co-accused Not Available When Apex Court Has Cancelled Bail”

The Court also rejected the claim of parity, where co-accused in the same case were granted bail by the High Court despite earlier cancellation, stating that parity cannot be invoked when the petitioner’s bail was granted and cancelled by the Supreme Court itself.

“The principle of parity does not extend to a case where bail was granted and cancelled by the Apex Court. Such judicial hierarchy and discipline must be preserved.”

The petitioner’s status as an elected representative and lack of prior criminal record were also deemed irrelevant, particularly in the context of grave charges and previous breach of bail conditions.

The Court relied on Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI, emphasizing that public office or social status does not dilute judicial scrutiny in serious criminal cases.

High Court Directs Petitioner to Approach Supreme Court for Bail

In conclusion, the High Court held that judicial propriety, the doctrine of separation of powers, and respect for hierarchical authority demand that only the Supreme Court can now reconsider the question of bail for the petitioner.

“By misuse of liberty granted, the petitioner has disentitled himself from claiming to be released on bail by relying on merits of claim of bail on any grounds. The accused is required to move the Apex Court itself for reconsideration.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with a clear declaration that no finding was made on the merits of the case, and all contentions were kept open for consideration before the appropriate forum.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026