SMT MYTHRI A K @ MYTHRI GOWDA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6780 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. MYTHRI A K @ MYTHRI GOWDA
W/O SURENDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT SAPTHAGIRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
SHETTOIHALLI ROAD
BANGALORE 560057
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITIN A M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY TOWN POLICE STATION
CHICKAMAGALURU
CHICKAMAGALURU-577134
2. SRI N GOWRISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.365, SPANDANA NILAYA
BESIDE RURAL POLICE STATION
C.D.A LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU-57710
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SAGAR A SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CR.NO.175/2018 DATED 16.01.2021
THAT IS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by the Trial
Court allowing the application filed under Section 437(5) of
Cr.P.C wherein the Trial Court cancelled the bail granted to
accused No.1 on the ground that the accused No.1 violated the
bail conditions as well as for violation of order of the court.
3. The Trial Court while passing such an order in
paragraph 12 held that while passing an order of granting of
bail, direction was given to the petitioner that she shall appear
before the IO or Court whenever directed to do so. But accused
No.1 failed to appear before the trial court. Hence, an
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
application is filed under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. Even after
filing that application also, this petitioner did not choose to
appear before the trial Court when the matter was heard for
cancellation of bail application. Trial Court taken note that on
18.12.2020, accused No.1 was absent and filed an application
along with copies of medical documents to show that one Mr.
Surendran is admitted to the hospital. Taking note of the same,
the trial Court allowed the said application and directed to
appear personally before the court on 08.01.2021. On that day
also, the petitioner again did not choose to appear before the
trial Court but exemption application was filed and the same
was rejected by the Trial Court and posted the matter to pass
an order on the application filed under Section 437(5) of
Cr.P.C. the order was passed on 16.01.2021 on the said
application wherein taken note that accused Nos. 1 and 2 when
they were produced before the trial Court, they were remanded
to judicial custody. Subsequently, on 29.08.2018, they were
granted bail with conditions and same was observed in
paragraph 8 of the order. The Trial Court taken note of the
second condition that accused shall not tamper with
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
prosecution witnesses and shall not commit any offences and
also appear before the court whenever court directs. The trial
court while passing the order of cancellation of bail also, in
paragraph 12, an observation is made that after hearing the
arguments on the application on 11.12.2020 court has directed
accused No.1 personally appear before the court for enquiry
and case was posted to 18.12.2020. But on 18.12.2020,
petitioner did not appear inspite of direction but produced the
documents to show that her husband is admitted to Gayathri
Diagnostic and Health Services, Bengaluru and same was taken
note of by the Trial Court and again directed to appear on
08.01.2021. While passing said order also, the trial court taken
note that Senior APP has submitted that documents produced
along with exemption application dated 18.12.2020 are also
false documents in view of the complaint filed by this accused
No.1 before the Police Inspector, Bangalore Police Station dated
30.03.2018. On going through this copy of the complaint it
reveals that prior to 2018, this accused No. 1 had divorced her
husband. But in the year 2020, she is stating that her husband
met with an accident and she is attending him. Even after
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
sufficient opportunity is granted, she has violated the order of
the court and not ready to appear before the court. Hence,
court comes to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds
to cancel the bail and passed the impugned order.
4. The said order is challenged before the Revisional
Court in Crl.R.P.No.10/2021 and Revisional Court also taken
note of the reasoning given by the trial Court while allowing the
application and cancelling the bail in paragraph 13 and also
taken note that the trial Court has cancelled the bail granted to
accused No.1 by holding that the accused No.1 is giving life
threat to the complainant and forcing him to settle the matter
through compromise and also observed that even after
sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not appeared before
the Court. In paragraph 14, it is observed with regard to
Facebook chats which has been produced by the prosecution
causing the threat and having considered the same, the
Revisional Court also held that when the direction is given for
not to tamper the prosecution witnesses and to appear before
the Court, the petitioner has not done the same and the same
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
is also taken note of in paragraph 16 of the order and
confirmed the order of the trial court.
5. Now the counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend before this Court that both the courts have
committed an error in cancelling the bail. The contention of the
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the reasoning given by
the trial court that Facebook account from which the message
has been sent to the respondent No.2 in this case has not been
sent from the account of the petitioner. The account of the
petitioner is named as Mythri Gowda and is linked on Facebook
to www.facebook.com/mythri.gowda.1422 and the account
from which message has been sent to the defacto complainant
is linked to www.facebook.com/sanvigowdasanvi.gowda.52.
The petitioner is using the first account and not the second one.
The copy of both the Facebook accounts screen shots have
been produced as Annexure-C and D respectively. Hence it is
contended that the message which has been sent is not belongs
to the defacto complainant. The counsel also vehemently
contend that the petitioner could not have been present in the
court on the day the petitioner was directed to be present for
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
the reason that her ex-husband Mr. Surendran was injured and
she remained in the hospital to take care of Mr. Surendran. The
copy of the police intimation of Medicolegal Case registered is
hereby produced which clearly indicate that the name of the
petitioner and copy of the MLC intimation and the attendant
card are produced as Annexure-E1 and E2.
6. The counsel also vehemently contend that the
petitioner that upon knowing the fact that somebody else has
sent a message from an account having the name of the
petitioner the petitioner has also filed a police complaint dated
26.07.2021 and an acknowledgment has been issued by the
Station House Officer, CEN Crime Police Station, North Division,
Bangalore City. The copy of the acknowledgement is also
produced as Annexure-F. The Counsel also vehemently contend
that non appearance before the court on the said date as
directed by the trial court was bonafide and not in order to
delay the proceedings of the court or with any other ill-
intention. The counsel would vehemently contend that
petitioner is innocent of the allegations made against her and
upon knowing the facts which has been the reason for which
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
her bail is now been cancelled and her valuable right has been
taken out by passing such an order. Hence, counsel would
contend that this court has to pass an order setting aside the
order of the trial court as well as the revisional court order.
7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/ complainant would vehemently contend that the order
passed in favour of the petitioner is a conditional order and the
same was not complied with. Hence, prosecution has filed an
application for cancellation of bail. The counsel brought to
notice of this court that even after filing of an application for
cancellation of bail, this petitioner did not choose to appear
before the court. The counsel also would contend that even the
trial Court has directed to appear before the court on particular
date and on that date also the petitioner did not choose to
appear and violated the conditions of the bail order. Counsel
also would contend that when the specific direction was given
to appear before the court on 18.12.2020, an exemption
application is filed along with the false document and the same
is also observed by the trial court in paragraph 12 that the said
document is in respect of her ex-husband and there was
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
already a divorce in the year 2018. But document of the year
2020 is produced. The counsel also vehemently contend that
even exemption was given on that day and specific direction
was given to appear on 08.01.2021, on that day also, did not
choose to appear and again exemption application was filed and
the same was rejected and posted the matter to pass an order.
Both the trial court as well as the revisional court taken note of
very conduct of the petitioner and even caused a threat to the
complainant to compromise in the matter and withdraw the
case and the same was also taken note of both the courts.
When such being the case, there cannot be any order of setting
aside of said the order.
8. The counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant also brought to notice of this court
that in C.C.No.2192/2020, the petitioner was examined as PW1
and she was subjected to cross examination. Though counsel
appearing for the petitioner denies that no such message was
sent to the complainant but in the cross examination of PW1
dated 22.02.2024 she has categorically admitted that her bail
was cancelled and she admits that she is also called as Mythri
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
Gowda and Sanvi Gowda and she is having two names and her
father name is Krishne Gowda and resident of Mudigere. In the
further cross examination, she categorically admitted that in
order to withdraw the complaint against the accused i.e., in
counter case, she has threatened and hence, her bail was
cancelled. This admission though denies, the message is clear
that she gave a threat to the complainant. All these factors
were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional
Cour. Hence, no ground is made out to set aside the order.
9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant and also having considered the
reasons given by the trial Court while passing an order while
cancelling the bail taking note of the conditions imposed while
granting the bail, it has to be noted that earlier this petitioner
was in jail and she was enlarged on bail subsequently with a
conditions to appear before the IO and also appear before the
court whenever court directs. But in the case on hand, when
the petitioner did not choose to appear before the trial court,
an application was filed for cancellation of bail and the same
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
was resisted by filing a statement of objections. Even matter
was heard and before considering that application also, the trial
court directed the petitioner to appear before the court on
specific date i.e., 18.12.2020, but the petitioner fails to appear
before the trial Court and made an application for exemption
and the same was also considered when the document was
filed along with the exemption application. The trial Court taken
lenient view while allowing the exemption application. However,
directed the petitioner that she shall appear on the next date of
hearing i.e., on 08.01.2021. On that day also, this petitioner
did not choose to appear before the court inspite of specific
direction was given in the previous date. On the specific date
also, an exemption application was filed and the same was
rejected. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the trial Court ought to have given the reason while
rejecting the application and the said submission of the counsel
for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that when
the specific direction was given to the petitioner to appear
before the court, not only on that day and even on the previous
date also, the petitioner did not choose to obey the order of the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
court and court also expect the reciprocate when the order was
passed by the trial court to appear before the court, but the
petitioner did not choose to obey the order of the court.
10. The counsel appearing for the State pointed out
that earlier document produced along with exemption
application pertaining to her ex-husband but she was divorced
in the year 2018 itself and the same is also not disputed but
date was fixed for appearance on 18.12.2020 but did not
choose to appear and when the date is given once again to
appear before the court before passing an order and
considering an application of cancellation of bail and this
petitioner did not choose to appear before the court and
continuously shown the adamant nature before the trial court
without complying the directions of the court. When such being
the case, not only the conditions of bail is violated and even a
threat was caused to the complainant and the same was also
brought to the notice of the court by the prosecution. Though
counsel appearing for the petitioner contend that the said
message was not sent by her mobile and Facebook. But counsel
appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
that the same is sent in the name of Sanvi Gowda though it is
not in the Mythri Gowda. But in the cross examination in other
case, she admits that she is also called as both Sanvi Gowda
and the Mythri Gowda. Thus, there is a clear admission that she
is called in two names. That is a matter of trial even if that is
denied before the Court. But prima facie it clearly discloses that
the admission is clear that she is called by both the names i.e.,
Sanvi Gowda as well as Mythri Gowda. When threat was caused
to the complainant, that amounts to even violation of the
conditions of the bail order. When such being the case, both
the factors were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the
Revisional Court. No doubt, no such separate complaint was
given by the complainant having caused the threat. But, the
Court has to take note of the conduct of the accused. When the
discretion is exercised in favour of the petitioner while granting
the bail imposing the conditions, the said conditions are not
obeyed and even the directions of the court is not complied
before passing the order of cancellation of bail. The petitioner
either choose to appear before the court or comply with the
order. If such appearance is made before the trial court before
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
passing such an order, the result would have been different.
Inspite of that, not obeyed the order of the Trial Court and
reasons assigned also that it is nothing but a falsification and
given the document in respect of the ex-husband and she was
divorced in 2018. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that even there was a divorce, there was no bar
to have good relationship with the ex-husband. No doubt, there
is a force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the
petitioner that she can maintain cordiality with the ex-husband.
But when the direction was given by the trial court to appear on
the particular date of hearing, instead of appearing, once again
filed an exemption application and even not ready to obey the
order of the Court. When such being the case, question of
exercising the discretion and showing any lenience in favour of
the petitioner does not arise. When the discretion is exercised
by the trial Court when she was sent to the custody and
enlarged her on bail within 2 days, ought to have taken note of
the same and respected the order of the Court. But the same
was not obeyed. When such material is available on record, it
clearly prima facie discloses that the petitioner is not having
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59699
CRL.P No. 6780 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010318162021
any respect to the orders of the Court. When such being the
case, exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to set
aside the order does not arise. The petitioner has not made out
any grounds to set aside the order of the trial Court in
cancellation of bail order and confirmation made by the
Revisional Court since both the Courts have taken note of
material on record and passed the reasoned order. Hence, it
does not requires any interference.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN