Bengaluru: The high court has cancelled the bail granted to three accused in a murder case, citing principles laid down by Supreme Court while cancelling the bail granted to actor Darshan in Renukaswamy murder case.Justice Venkatesh Naik T said Supreme Court, while dealing with Darshan’s case, had emphasised that a court granting bail must examine whether all relevant factors have been considered and if its discretion has been exercised in accordance with law.Supreme Court had also held that while considering bail in serious offences, courts cannot lose sight of the gravity of the accusation and prima facie material against the accused, Justice Naik noted.The observations came while allowing a petition filed by Shankaragouda Basanagouda Patil, a resident of Hannikeri village in Belagavi, challenging the bail granted to Dyamappa alias Mudukappa, Manjunath and Rudrappa by a Belagavi sessions court.According to the complaint, Patil’s brother Sanganagouda was returning from Siddeshwar fair around 11 pm on March 30, 2026. When he was dancing near the house of accused no. 1 Dyamappa at Bairanahatti Cross, Dyamappa objected, leading to an altercation.Dyamappa allegedly assaulted Sanganagouda on the head with an axe, following which other accused joined the attack. Patil and another man, Mallanagouda, tried to rescue him. Sanganagouda was taken to hospital with serious injuries but was declared dead. Nesargi police arrested the three accused and they were remanded in judicial custody. The sessions court granted them bail on May 4.Patil challenged the order, contending that the sessions court had wrongly concluded that the accused’s constitutional right under Article 22(1) had been violated because the grounds of arrest hadn’t been properly communicated.Police, however, had specifically stated that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused in a language known to them and that they had acknowledged this by signing the notices.Justice Naik noted that the case records contained material showing that the grounds of arrest had been furnished to the accused. They had signed the documents containing the grounds, which were also produced before the magistrate. More importantly, the accused had told the magistrate that the grounds had been communicated to them and that they understood them.“In the face of such material,” the judge said, the sessions court ought to have examined whether there was an actual failure to comply with the constitutional mandate or whether the accused had suffered any demonstrable prejudice. Instead, the sessions court appeared to have proceeded on the premise that an alleged deficiency in the grounds of arrest was sufficient to justify bail, Justice Naik observed.Justice Naik accordingly reversed the sessions court’s order and cancelled the bail granted to the three accused.
