Karnataka High Court
Ravi Basavaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100680 OF 2026
(407 OF Cr.PC/447 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI BASAVARAJ
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. NEAR COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE,
RAGHAVENDRA COLONEY, BALLARI.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
11TH WARD, 6TH LIAN,
LINGARAJA CAMP, GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
2. VIJAY @ MAILARI
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D S/O. HANUMANTAPPA,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
Dharwad
Bench R/O. INDRA NAGAR, 15TH WARD,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
11TH WARD, 6TH LIAN,
LINGARAJA CAMP, GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
3. DHANARAJA
@ LAXMANARAVA MARATHI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/O. HRS COLONY,
GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS:
HRS COLONY, GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
4. BHIMA @ BHARATA S/O. KARIYAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. 17TH WARD,
AMARAGHAGATHA SING NAGAR,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS:
HRS COLONY, GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
5. SALIM S/O. MAHMAD RAFIK,
AGE : 21 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
R/O. AMARAGHAGATHA SING NAGAR,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS:
AMARAGHAGATHA SING NAGAR,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
6. GANGADHAR S/O. BABURAVA GOULI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. 23RD WARD, GUNDAMMA CAMP,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS
23RD WARD, GUNDAMMA CAMP,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
7. KARTHIK
S/O. DURGAPPA GODDBAL,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. AMARAGHAGATHA SING NAGAR,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
PERMANENT ADRESS:
AMARAGHAGATHA SING NAGAR,
GANGAWATHI, KOPPAL.
8. DADAFEER
S/O. ABDUL ROUF PRINCE,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
R/O. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BALLARI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS:
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, BALLARI,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
9. MAHMAD ALTAF
S/O. MEHIBOOB PASH,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: COOK,
R/O. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BALLARI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADRESS:
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, BALLARI,
KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
10. CHAITRA W/O. RAVI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. NEAR COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE,
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BALLARI, KOPPAL.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
LINGARAJA CAMP, GANGAVATHI,
KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V. M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI GANGAVATHI TOWN
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. HAMPANNA
S/O. AYYAPPA JANTAGAL
AGE: 55, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. SUNAGAR ONI,
NEAR JAGADAMBHA RICE MILL,
MURAHARI NAGAR,
GANGAVATHI-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J. M., AAG FOR
SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL AND
SRI DAYANAND SANGRESHI HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 407
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.447 OF BNSS
2023) PRAYING TO TRANSFER S.C.NO. 05/2026 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2),
191(3), 49, 56, 61(2), 103(1), 109(1), 249(B) , 238, 190 OF
BNS 2023, TO ANY OTHER SESSIONS COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION TO TRY OR TO ANY OTHER COURT, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT THINKS FIT TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 407 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short), read with
Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’ for short), by accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 praying to
transfer the Sessions Case in S.C.No.5/2026, pending on
the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Koppal,
sitting at Gangavathi, to any other Sessions Court having
jurisdiction to try or to any other Court which this Court
thinks fit.
I) FACTS TO CONSIDER IN THIS PETITION:
2. It is the brief case of the prosecution that the
petitioners/accused have committed murder of the
deceased Venkatesh and facing charges for the offence
punishable under Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 49, 56,
61(2), 103(1), 109(1), 249(B), 238, 190 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further case of the prosecution
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
that after compliance of all legal formalities, the trial has
begun and all the charge sheet witnesses have been
examined and posted the matter for examination of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C./under Section 351 of BNSS
and at that moment this petition is filed praying to transfer
the Sessions Case to any other Sessions Court in the same
Sessions Division. The petitioners/accused are in Judicial
Custody.
II) GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PETITION:
3. The above stated petitioners/accused have raised
various grounds in the petition for seeking transfer claiming
that the petitioners have not committed offence as alleged
against them. The petitioners have fundamental rights to
choose their advocate of their choice. It is the main ground
that the learned Sessions Judge has abused the petitioners’
counsel and discharging vakalath of the petitioners
advocates and not providing the petitioners an opportunity
to engage advocate of their choice and appointing District
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
Legal Aid Defence Counsel (‘DLADC’ for short) to cross
examine the witnesses on the same date is not a fair trial.
Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not uploaded the
depositions of the witnesses and therefore the learned
Sessions Judge has acted arbitrarily. Further raised ground
that the learned Sessions Judge is bent upon to convict the
petitioners at any event and therefore the leaned Sessions
Judge has prejudiced himself against the
petitioners/accused.
4. Further raised ground that the petitioners have
engaged an advocate from out of the Sessions
Division/District and compelling the advocate coming from
other District and traveling day to day is causing
inconvenience to them. Therefore, trial is not fixed at the
convenience of the advocates. Further raised ground that
fixing dates of trial were at whims and fancies of the
Presiding Officer of the Court, but has not taken
convenience and confidence of the advocate of the accused.
Further raised ground that the Presiding Officer has
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
addressed the petitioners advocates while conducting
Sessions trial has called them as goondas, is nothing but
arbitrary and showing prejudiced mind of the Presiding
Officer. Therefore, vitiates the entire proceedings and
contentions. Further raised ground that the Presiding
Officer/Sessions Judge is bent upon to convict the
petitioners without conducting fair trial and trying to gain
media publicity at the cost of life of the petitioners.
Therefore, the petitioners have shown their apprehension
that there is no fair trial.
5. Further raised ground that mere reasonable
apprehension is enough to transfer the case as per the
judgment of this Court reported in Crl.L.J. 1975 page 744.
6. Further raised ground that the entire order sheet
discloses that the petitioners have been falsely charged and
would not get justice at the hands of the present Court, in
which the Sessions trial is going on. Therefore, prays for
transfer of the case.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. Further raised ground that, upon perusal of the
order sheet, the way in which the leaned Sessions Judge is
trying the case does not depict a fair and proper trial and
thus the fundamental right of the accused as per Article 21
of the Constitution of India is violated. Therefore, prays to
transfer the case to some other Sessions Court in the same
Sessions Division.
8. Heard the arguments of Sri V.M.Sheelavant,
learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12,
Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.1 State and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material
placed before the Court.
III) ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONERS:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submitted with reference to the order sheet produced
during the course of argument that the way in which the
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Sessions Judge is conducting trial is not fair and
proper. Further submitted that accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12
are yet to engage services of advocate, but without giving
opportunity of engaging service of advocate, the leaned
Sessions Judge has framed charges and on the very next
date proceeded with trial without giving opportunity to hear
the petitioners/accused for engaging service of advocate of
their choice and appointing DLADC is not correct. It is
argued that the accused have fundamental right to appoint
their own advocate as per their choice, but that is not
provided to the accused. Even though the DLADC is
appointed, but insisting on the very same day to conduct
examination of prosecution witnesses is nothing but the
leaned Sessions Judge is having prejudicial mind against the
accused persons to convict them. Therefore, submitted that
there is no fair trial in the Sessions case and ultimately it
affects the life and liberty of the petitioners. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioners has complained heavily
on the leaned Sessions Judge and submitted that proper
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
opportunity for defending the accused is not given and
therefore, there is no fair trial. Hence the trial is amounting
to mockery of justice. Hence, prays to transfer case to
another Sessions Court in the same division.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners by taking the
order sheet of the Sessions Court has argued that sufficient
opportunities are not given. In the order sheet throughout
the proceedings it is noted in the Sessions case order sheet
that so far as accused No.1 to 9 is concerned the matter is
posted for engaging counsel. Therefore, when the stage is
for appointing advocates by the petitioners/accused, but the
charges are framed, trial dates are fixed and proceeded
with the trial in absence of accused. Further submitted that
though the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on every date of
hearing in the order sheet but has deliberately not followed
the one of the condition that dates of trial to be fixed at the
convenience of the advocate. Therefore, the leaned
Sessions Judge after framing charge before fixing the case
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
for trial ought to have taken convenience and confidence of
the advocate. But it is submitted that the order sheet of the
Sessions case depicts the dates fixed for trial are at the
whims and fancies of the leaned Sessions Judge without
bothering about the convenience of the accused and their
counsels. Therefore, submitted that the speedy and
expeditious trial does not mean that it is done at the cost of
fair trial. Therefore, it is made a substantial ground for the
petitioners as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the leaned Sessions Judge is not
discharging duty properly and is not fair in conducting trial
and the learned Sessions Judge is having prejudiced mind
to convict the accused. Therefore, prays to transfer the case
as prayed for.
IV) ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL:
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Advocate General for the State and also learned counsel for
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 submitted that the leaned Sessions Judge
has followed the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a catena of decisions in letter and spirit in
conducting the trial on day to day basis and is not in any
way prejudicing the right of the accused.
12. It is further submitted that the
petitioners/accused are facing charges of culpable homicide
amounting to murder and other charges and accused No.1
is facing 16 cases and according to the prosecution case, he
is an antisocial element and even is not bothering about the
Courts and judiciary. Therefore, as per the guidelines of
Hon’ble Supreme Court the leaned Sessions Judge is
conducting trial without committing any lapse in the
proceedings. Therefore, submitted that the grounds raised
by the petitioners in the petition are baseless. Further
submitted that, just because trial is conducted on day to
day basis as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and as per necessary mandatory provisions under Section
309 of Cr.P.C., that would not cause any prejudice to the
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
rights of the accused. The petitioners have engaged service
of advocate and after hearing them, charges were framed
and dates for trial were fixed and the petitioners have kept
silence till exhaustion of evidence of prosecution witnesses
and when the case is posted for examination of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C./Section 351 of BNSS, 2023 at
that moment the petitioners have filed this petition is
nothing but dragging the case. Therefore submitted that the
petition is not maintainable. Further submitted that before
filing this petition before this Court the petitioners ought to
have approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge
and without doing so, straightway coming to this Court
disentitles maintaining the petition for transfer. Further
submitted that every transfer petition shall be supported by
affidavit but in the present case the petition is annexed only
verifying affidavit. Thus, the verifying affidavit is not
sufficient. On this ground also it submitted that the petition
is not maintainable.
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. Further submitted that since the stage of
registration of crime the accused have engaged service of
advocate and also after committal to the Sessions Court
from the learned Magistrate, the accused have engaged
service of advocate even after committal and thus filed copy
of vakalaths filed by advocates for the accused filed before
the crime stage and even after committal and at the time of
registration of the Sessions case. Therefore, submitted the
trial is fair one.
14. Further submitted with reference to the
observations made in the order sheet that the advocates of
the accused have threatened the Court and also witnesses
and it is noted down in the order sheet. Thus, the advocates
for accused are liable for facing legal action including
criminal contempt of Court.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 submitted that, during the midst of the trial the
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
advocate for the accused have created a scene in the Court
Hall during conducting the trial by threatening the judge is
amounting to threatening the Judge and witnesses as in
detail described in the order sheet. Therefore, submitted
that the advocate for the accused are also amenable for
legal action. Therefore submitted that the entire trial is
found to be fair and following every provisions of
Cr.P.C./BNSS. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
16. Upon hearing the arguments of both the sides
the following points would arise for consideration.
i) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
petitioners/accused prove that the learned
Sessions Judge conducting trial in S.C.No.5/2026
being Presiding Officer of the I Additional District
and Sessions Court, Koppal, sitting at
Gangavathi, is not conducting fair trial?
ii) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, upon
observations made by the learned Sessions
Judge in the order sheet in the Sessions Case
No.5/2026, on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Court, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi,
the advocates as per recorded in order sheet
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
dated 16.03.2026 are amenable for legal action
upon professional misconduct?
V) REASONING:
17. The accused are facing charge of culpable
homicide amounting to murder and is pending before the
Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,
sitting at Gangavathi. In order to ascertain whether there is
fair trial or not, it is worthwhile to discuss the chronological
events in the trial from inception.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners and also the
learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have placed their synopsis along with
dates of events in the trial and certified copies of order
sheet maintained in the Sessions Case No.5/2026. Since it
is argued regarding the trial, therefore, the chronological
dates of events are discussed from the date of committal to
the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after receiving
papers of the case after making over to the Court of
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at
Gangavathi, has issued intimation to the concerned jail
authority to produce accused Nos.1 to 11 through video
conference and issued summons to accused No.12
returnable by 18.02.2026.
19. On 18.02.2026, accused Nos.6 to 9 were
produced from Hadagali jail through VC and accused Nos.10
and 11 are produced from Koppal and accused Nos.2 to 5
are produced from Harapahanalli through VC. On that day
accused Nos.1 to 9 have submitted that they engaged a
counsel by name Sri Krishna Naik as their counsel and he
would be present on the next date of hearing and also on
behalf of accused Nos.10 and 11, advocate by name IK and
UAM have filed vakalath. On that day learned counsel for
accused No.11 filed discharge application under Section 250
of BNSS and for objection to the said application, the case
was posted on next date 20.02.2026.
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
20. Though in the order sheet it is mentioned for
engaging counsel by accused Nos.1 to 9, but the learned
Additional Advocate General filed memo along with certified
copies of vakalath and argued that from the stage of crime
soon after arrest the accused, the accused have availed
services of advocate. The petitioners are in custody.
Therefore, they have executed vakalath from jail in the
presence of Superintendent of Taluka Sub-Jail,
Huvinahadagali. Therefore, the vakalath shows, during
committal stage and after committal of the case to the
Session Court, the accused/petitioners have engaged
service of advocate. The learned counsel for petitioners
much argued that in the order sheet filing of vakalath is not
mentioned in the order sheet. Therefore, argued that the
stage is still regarding service of advocate. But the very fact
that production of vakalath executed by accuse at the crime
stage and also filing of memo of appearance by the accused
after committal shows, the accused have consciously
engaged service of advocates on their own choice as per
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
their will and wish. Therefore, there is no merit found in the
argument canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioners
so far as the opportunities were not provided for engaging
service of advocate. Though in the order sheet it is noted
engaging service of advocate, but mere non writing in the
order sheet that accused Nos.1 to 9 to be engaged advocate
is not a ground to consider that the accused have not
engaged service of advocate. The very memo filed by the
learned Additional Advocate General along with certified
copies of vakalath and memo of appearance, proved the
fact that the petitioners/accused and other accused have
engaged service of advocate since inception from the date
of arresting the petitioners.
21. The certified copy of vakalat issued by the Court
of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangavathi,
shows, accused Nos.1, 2 to 5, 6 to 9 have engaged
advocates by name M.A.Byalirotti Law Chambers and
Associates. The names of advocates are M.A.Byalirotti and
Krishna Naik. The signatures of said advocates are found in
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the vakalath. The vakalath produced by the learned
Additional Advocate General shows, before committal and
when the case is pending before the Court of Magistrate,
awaiting the order for committal, the accused have engaged
service of advocates as above stated. Also the vakalath
produced by accused Nos.10 and 11 shows that they have
engaged service of advocate one Sri HV and Sri Imrakhan
advocates and also after committal of the case to the
Sessions Court, in Sessions Case also the accused have filed
vakalath and memo of appearance. Therefore, the copies of
vakalath produced by learned Additional Advocate General
prove the fact that the accused have engaged service of
advocate. All the vakalaths have been filed on 13.01.2026,
23.01.2026, 18.02.2026 and 20.02.2026. Therefore, as on
the date of committal order passed and committing the case
to the Sessions Court, and after registering the case as
Sessions case, the petitioners have engaged services of
advocates as it is proved from the certified copies of
vakalats filed by the learned Additional Advocate General.
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Therefore, as on 20.02.2026 all the accused have filed their
respective vakalaths for all the accused. Therefore the
accused are well represented by their own advocates upon
their choice and according to their will and wish.
22. Accused No.11 filed application for discharge
under Section 250 of BNSS, which is dismissed on
20.03.2026. An opportunity was also given on the side of
other accused to file application for discharge, but they
have not filed according to their discretion. But the
arguments is canvassed by the learned counsel for
petitioners that an opportunity was not given for filing
application for discharge cannot be accepted for the reason
that when the other accused have opportunity to file
application for discharge and even they have not filed,
therefore the learned Sessions Judge is correct and right of
hearing the accused before framing charge and after
hearing the accused and their counsel, has framed charge.
Therefore, it is found there is no any lapse on the part of
the Sessions Court for ordering for framing charge. It is
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
important to note that the accused are facing serious
charges of commission of murder and quite naturally the
Sessions Courts are working and acting on the oral
submission of the learned advocates on charge. Therefore,
just because non writing in the order sheet that the other
accused have not filed application for discharge is not a
ground to say that there is no hearing before charge. The
accused No.11 has wished and opted to file application for
discharge and that is considered and accordingly passed
order on 23.02.2026 and other accused have not filed
application for discharge. Therefore, the learned Sessions
Judge has proceeded further to hear before framing charge
and accordingly after hearing framed charge. Therefore, at
this stage there is no lapse committed by the learned
Sessions Judge in framing charge.
23. As discussed above, all the accused have
engaged service of advocate on their own choice and as per
their own wisdom. Hence, before framing of charge the
advocates were also heard and framed charges. Further
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
accused No.10 has also filed application for discharge under
Section 250 of BNSS and after receiving objection by the
prosecution, the said application is dismissed as having
become infructuous. The said application is filed on
24.02.2026, but before that on 23.02.2026 charges were
framed. Therefore after framing charges accused No.10 filed
application for discharge is nothing but an attempt to make
protracting the trial on the guise of filing application for
discharge. Therefore, at the very initial point of time the
accused have made attempt to protract the trial of the
proceedings.
24. It is also recorded that at the time of hearing
before charge and framing of charge, it is noted, the
accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has followed the
procedures while framing charge and has noted down in the
order sheet that the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Accordingly for fixing the date of trial the date is
given on 27.02.2026. Therefore, after framing charge, the
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Sessions Judge has not directly fixed the dates for
trial, but has given sufficient opportunity to the advocates
for fixing date of trial which can be found in the order sheet
dated 27.02.2026 and 02.03.2026. Therefore, when on the
date on 23.02.2026 after framing charge the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, then on next two
dates opportunity was given to the advocates for accused
for fixing date of trial as stage for FDT on the dates on
27.02.2026 and 02.03.2026 enable the advocates for
preparing for trial as per their convenience.
25. Then on 03.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge
has fixed dates for trial commencing from 05.03.2026 till
the date 16.03.2026. It is noted down on 03.03.2026 in the
order sheet that all the counsels are present. As discussed
above, during crime stage and after committal of the case
to the Sessions Court and registering the case as Sessions
Case, all the accused have engaged advocates and
advocates have filed their respective vakalaths for accused
and therefore on 03.03.2026 the advocates were present
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
and in the presence of them the date of trial were fixed.
Therefore, there is no merit in the argument canvassed by
the learned counsel for petitioners that the Clause (6) of the
Circular issued by this Court and the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is not followed. The learned Sessions Judge
has fixed the date of trial at the convenience of the
advocates. The order sheet shows that after taking
convenience of the advocates and they were present and by
recording that both the advocates are present, then the
date for trial are fixed commencing from 05.03.2026 to
16.03.2026. Therefore, the order sheet maintained in the
Sessions Case shows, in presence of advocates the dates of
trial are fixed.
26. It is a normal procedure and practice that
keeping pending some material objects, charge sheet can
be filed so that to avoid delay in filing charge sheet since
some material objects are yet to be received from the FSL
and other offices, which cannot be found fault with.
Likewise, when dates for trial are fixed, some of material
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
objects were yet to be filed/produced, therefore to avoid
delay in fixing the date of trial awaiting the production of
material objects, the date of trial can be fixed. This
procedure cannot be found fault with. The production of
some material objects from FSL may consume some time
and there is no rule that unless production of material from
the FSL, dates of trial cannot be fixed. This procedure goes
to avoid delay in the trial. What the thing is to be followed
and considered is that, during the trial in examination of
witnesses the concerned material objects shall be produced.
Therefore, production of material objects till the police have
obtained till the date of examination of witnesses, this
procedure followed by the Sessions Court is found to be
correct and there is no lapse in this regard in following the
procedures.
27. On 05.03.2026 when the trial is commenced of
examination of prosecution witnesses, accused Nos.1 to 9
were produced through video conference and accused Nos.8
and 11 are produced physically and accused No.12 was
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
present and on that date one sealed cover is opened and
found a pen-drive and the learned Sessions Court has
ordered to furnish a copy of pen-drive to the counsel for the
accused persons.
28. When the dates of trial are fixed, there is no
grievance expressed by the advocates for the accused that
they have not received copy of charge sheet by the Court of
Magistrate. If the advocates of accused had any grievance
regarding non-receipt of charge sheet, then immediately
after committal of the case to Sessions Court and
registering the case as Sessions Case when advocates filing
vakalath and memo of appearance in the Sessions Case, the
advocates would have mentioned the Court that they have
not received copies of the charge sheet. But there is no
complaint in this regard by the learned counsel for accused.
There is no any submission by learned counsel for accused
that they have not received copies of charge sheet. Even on
05.03.2026 when the trial has been commenced, a sealed
cover is opened in the Open Court and found one pen-drive
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
and it is ordered to furnish copies of pen-drive and it is
noted down in the order sheet. On this day also there was
no grievance by the advocates for accused that they have
not received copy of charge sheet. Therefore, it means,
during crime stage only after filing the charge sheet the
copies of charge sheet were furnished to the advocate for
accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C/Section 230 of BNSS,
2023. Therefore, in this regard there is no merit found in
the submission made by the learned counsel for
petitioners/accused.
29. Trial was conducted as per trial dates on
05.03.2026 and continued on 06.03.2026, 09.03.2026,
10.03.2026, 11.03.2026, 12.03.2026, 13.03.2026,
16.03.2026, 17.03.2026 and 18.03.2026.
30. Upon considering the events that occurred on
these dates of trial, it is found that there was non-
cooperation by the advocate for the accused during trial. It
is the mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
witnesses shall not be exhausted by being repeatedly called
to appear before the Court and that soon after the
completion of examination-in-chief of witnesses, the
advocate for the accused shall cross-examine the witnesses.
But against this principle, the advocate for the accused
prayed time for cross-examination of PW.2 and it was
refused by the learned Sessions Judge, hence recorded
cross-examination by taking it as ‘nil’. Though on
06.03.2026 cross-examination of PW.2 is taken as ‘nil’, the
witness was recalled and he was cross-examined.
31. On 09.03.2026 a new advocate by name, Sri. S.
Rangaswamy, filed vakalath for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12
along with previous advocate. Therefore, the previous
advocate continued on record and Sri. S. Rangaswamy has
also entered appearance on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 9
and 12 along with the previous advocate on record. It is
recorded in the order sheet dated 09.03.2026 that CW.9
was fully examined-in-chief as PW.3 by the learned public
prosecutor and was also cross-examined by advocate for
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12. Likewise, C.W.13 was examined
and cross-examined during the proceedings. On
10.03.2026, it is recorded in the order sheet that C.W.13 is
facing threat from accused No.1. Therefore, it is recorded
that there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses.
32. Further, upon considering the proceedings
recorded in the order sheets dated 11.03.2026 and
12.03.2026, the charge sheet witnesses were examined by
the prosecution and cross-examined by the advocate for the
accused. On the very next date of hearing, i.e., on
13.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge has noted the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau
of Investigation vs. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman
Ali1, and the Circular No. MISC No. HCLC 32/25, dated
22.11.2025 issued by this Court, directing the Sessions
Court to conduct trial on day-to-day basis and to expedite
trial. Therefore, the advocates for the accused are well
aware of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble
1
2025 INSC 1155
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Supreme Court that trial shall be conducted on day-to-day
basis and as expeditiously as possible.
33. Upon considering the chronological sequence of
events as recorded in the order sheets for each day of trial,
no procedural lapse is found to have been committed in
conducting trial and trial has been conducted by the learned
Sessions Judge in accordance with the principle of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, no fault
can be found with the same. It is found that the accused
have engaged advocate from beginning of the case and on
09.03.2026, the accused have engaged an advocate Sri. S.
Rangaswamy (Sri. SRS advocate) along with previous
advocate. Therefore, the accused were well aware of trial
procedures as recorded in the order sheets in the Sessions
case. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the accused.
34. The accused have also filed an application for
transferring them from Huvinahadagali Jail to Ballari Jail
and this requisition was rejected by the learned Sessions
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Judge. In the order sheet, it is shown that on 16.03.2026,
the advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 cross-examined
PW.9 and PW.10. On the same day, the advocate for
accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 filed an application under
Section 346 of BNSS, 2023, for adjournment of case on the
ground that he needs to come from Ballari to attend the
case and therefore it is causing inconvenience to him, but
this request was rejected.
35. It is worthwhile to mention here that the
directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir
Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (stated supra) at Clause
No.[4] in paragraph No.37 and also at Clause No.[4] in the
Circular dated 22.11.2025 issued by this Court in MISC No.
HCLC 32/25, which reads as follows:
“[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to
suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except
on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the
family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported
by memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
advocate is not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of
bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.”
36. Therefore, merely because the cross-examination
sought by the advocate during trial was rejected, that
cannot be a ground to say that the accused are prejudiced.
Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, entered appearance on
09.03.2026; hence, it is presumed that he was aware of
trial dates and accepted the vakalath accordingly.
Therefore, the advocate shall not raise such a ground for
seeking adjournments.
37. Further, the advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and
12 has submitted that he needs time to challenge the order
passed on the application filed by accused No.10 and the
same is rightly rejected by the Sessions Court. The
advocate appearing for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 has no
locus standi to challenge the order on the discharge
application filed by accused No.10 and this attempt is
nothing but an effort to protract trial, which is contrary to
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (stated supra).
38. Further in the order sheet dated 16.03.2026 the
learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed
under Section 346 of BNSS, 2023, and also recorded that
the accused persons, who are appearing before the Court
through video conference are continuously disturbing the
Court proceedings though they are represented by their
advocates. Therefore, the accused are trying to protract
trial by one or the other way as discussed above.
39. On 17.03.2026, witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, but advocates for the accused sought time for
cross-examination and the same was rejected. Therefore,
this shows non-cooperation on the part of the accused,
acting through their advocates, with an apparent intention
to protract trial. Consequently, on 27.03.2026, having no
other option and in compliance with the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Ali (stated supra), the Sessions Court has engaged an
Advocate as Amicus Curiae from the District Legal Aid
Defence Council2 and continued trial.
40. Thereafter trial continued on 18.03.2026,
23.03.2026, 24.03.2026, 25.03.2026 and 26.03.2026. On
all these dates, the advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12
did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The
advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 was continuously
pressing for adjournments for the purpose of cross-
examining the witnesses, as recorded in the order sheets
and such requests were rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge by assigning reasons in line with the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
41. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Usman @
Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (stated supra), wherein guidelines
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DLADC’
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
have been issued in paragraph No.37, which reads as
follows:
37. The Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct
their administrative side to issue a circular to the
respective district judiciaries stating as under:
[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall
be held expeditiously.
[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses
starts such examination shall be continued from
day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance
have been examined except for special reasons to be
recorded in writing.
[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before
the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be
granted without examining them, except for special
reasons to be recorded in writing.
[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to
suit the convenience of the advocate concerned
except on very exceptional grounds like
bereavement in the family and similar exceptional
reasons duly supported by memo. Be it noted that
the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a
“Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the
immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his
counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:
a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel,
the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-
cooperation is in active collusion with the
accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the
accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to
show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.
b. In cases where the accused is not in
collusion with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is
not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for
reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae
for the accused and fix a date for proceeding
with cross-examination/trial.
c. The Court may also in appropriate cases
impose cost on the accused commensurate with
the loss suffered by the witness including the
expenses to attend the court.
d. In case when the accused is absent and
the witness is present for examination, in that
case the Court can cancel the bail of accused if
he is on bail. (Unless an application is made on
his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to
proceed to examine the witness present even in
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
his absence, provided the accused gives an
undertaking in writing that, he would not
dispute, his identity as a particular accused in
the case.)[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may
evolve the system for framing a schedule of
constructive working days for examination of
witnesses in each case, well in advance, after
ascertaining the convenience of counsel on both
sides.
[7] The summons or process could be handed
over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case
to cause them to be served on the witnesses, as
per schedule fixed by the Court.”
42. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akil
Alias Javed vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3, at paragraph
Nos.34, 35 and 36, has held as under:
34. Under Section 309 CrPC falling under Chapter
XXIV it has been specifically stipulated as under:
“309. Power to postpone or adjourn
proceedings.–(1) In every inquiry or trial, the
proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible,
3
(2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 125
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has
once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day
until all the witnesses in attendance have been
examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the
same beyond the following day to be necessary for
reasons to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an
offence under Sections 376 to 376-D of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as
possible, be completed within a period of two months
from the date of commencement of the examination of
witnesses.
(2) If the court, after taking cognizance of an offence,
or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable
to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any
inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to
be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such
terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers
reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if
in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused
person to custody under this section for a term exceeding
fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in
attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
granted, without examining them, except for special
reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for
the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show
cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on
him:
35. In this context it will also be worthwhile to refer to
a circular issued by the High Court of Delhi in Circular No.
1/87 dated 12-1-1987. Clause 24-A of the said circular
reads as under:
“24-A. A disturbing trend of trial of sessions cases
being adjourned, in some cases to suit convenience of
counsel and in some others because the prosecution is
not fully ready, has come to the notice of the High Court.
Such adjournments delay disposal of sessions cases.
The High Court considers it necessary to draw the
attention of all the Sessions Judges and Assistant
Sessions Judges once again to the following provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Criminal Rules of
Practice, Kerala, 1982 and Circulars and instructions on
the list system issued earlier, in order to ensure the
speedy disposal of sessions cases.
1. (a) In every enquiry or trial, the proceedings shall
be held as expeditiously as possible, and, in particular,
– 42 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the
same shall be continued from day to day until all the
witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the
court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the
following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
[Section 309(1) CrPC]
(b) After the commencement of the trial, if the court
finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the
commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it
may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded
postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks
fit, for such time as it considers reasonable. If witnesses
are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall
be granted, without examining them, except for special
reasons to be recorded, in writing. [Section 309(2) CrPC]
2. Whenever more than three months have elapsed
between the date of apprehension of the accused and the
close of the trial in the Court of Session, an explanation
of the cause of delay, (in whatever court it may have
occurred) shall be furnished, while transmitting the copy
of the judgment. (Rule 147, Criminal Rules of Practice)
3. Sessions cases should be disposed of within six
weeks of their institution, the date of commitment being
taken as the date of institution in sessions cases. Cases
pending for longer periods should be regarded as old
cases in respect of which explanations should be
– 43 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
furnished in the calendar statements and in the periodical
returns. (High Court Circular No. 25/61 dated 26-10-
1961)
4. Sessions cases should be given precedence over all
other work and no other work should be taken up on
sessions days until the sessions work for the day is
completed. A sessions case once posted should not be
postponed unless that is unavoidable, and once the trial
has begun, it should proceed continuously from day to
day till it is completed. If for any reason, a case has to be
adjourned or postponed, intimation should be given
forthwith to both sides and immediate steps be taken to
stop the witnesses and secure their presence on the
adjourned date.
On receipt of the order of commitment the case should
be posted for trial to as early a date as possible,
sufficient time, say three weeks, being allowed for
securing the witnesses. Ordinarily it should be possible to
post two sessions cases a week, the first on Monday and
the second on Thursday but sufficient time should be
allowed for each case so that one case does not
telescope into the next. Every endeavour should be made
to avoid telescoping and for this, if necessary, the court
should commence sitting earlier and continue sitting later
than the normal hours. Judgment in the case begun on
Monday should ordinarily be pronounced in the course of
– 44 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the week and that begun on Thursday the following
Monday. (Instructions on the list system contained in the
OM dated 8-3-1984)
All the Sessions Judges and the Assistant Sessions
Judges are directed to adhere strictly to the above
provisions and instructions while granting adjournments
in sessions cases.”
36. In this context some of the decisions which have
specifically dealt with such a situation which has caused
serious inroad into the criminal jurisprudence can also be
referred to. In one of the earliest cases in Badri Prasad v.
Emperor (1912) 13 Cri LJ 861 (All), a Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court has stated the legal position as
under: (Cri LJ p. 862)
“… Moreover, we wish to point out that it is most
inexpedient for a sessions trial to be adjourned. The
intention of the Code is that a trial before a Court of
Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously
from its inception to its finish. Occasions may arise when
it is necessary to grant adjournments, but such
adjournments should be granted only on the strongest
possible ground and for the shortest possible period.”
– 45 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
43. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme in State of U.P.
vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and Others4, at paragraph
Nos.10 to 14, has held as under:
Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short “the Code”) is the only provision which confers
power on the trial court for granting adjournments in
criminal proceedings. The conditions laid down by the
legislature for granting such adjournments have been
clearly incorporated in the section. It reads thus:
“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- (1)
In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as
expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall
be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds
the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to
be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence,
or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable
to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any
inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to
be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such
terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers4
(2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 667
– 46 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if
in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused
person to custody under this section for a term exceeding
fifteen days at a time.
Provided further that when witnesses are in
attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be
granted without examining them, except for special
reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for
the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show
cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on
him.”
11. The first sub-section mandates on the trial courts
that the proceedings shall be held expeditiously but the
words “as expeditiously as possible” have provided some
play at the joints and it is through such play that delay
often creeps in the trials. Even so, the next limb of the
sub-section sounded for a more vigorous stance to be
adopted by the court at a further advanced stage of the
trial. That stage is when examination of witnesses begin.
The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate
contained in the initial limb of the sub-section by using
the words “as expeditiously as possible” has chosen to
make the requirement for the next stage (when
– 47 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
examination of the witnesses has started) to be quite
stern. Once the case reaches that stage the statutory
command is that such examination “shall be continued
from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance
have been examined”. The solitary exception to the said
stringent rule is, if the court finds that adjournment
“beyond the following day to be necessary” the same can
be granted for which a condition is imposed on the court
that reasons for the same should be recorded. Even this
dilution has been taken away when witnesses are in
attendance before the Court. In such situation the court
is not given any power to adjourn the case except in the
extreme contingency for which the second proviso to
sub-section (2) has imposed another condition,
“provided further that when witnesses are in
attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be
granted without examining them, except for special
reasons to be recorded in writing.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of
witnesses started the court has to continue the trial from
day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been
examined (except those whom the party has given up).
The court has to record reasons for deviating from the
said course. Even that is forbidden when witnesses are
present in court, as the requirement then is that the
– 48 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
court has to examine them. Only if there are “special
reasons”, which reasons should find a place in the order
for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the
court to adjourn the case without examination of
witnesses who are present in court.
13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a
common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts
flout the said command with immunity. Even when
witnesses are present cases are adjourned on far less
serious reasons or even on flippant grounds.
Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the
mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are
granted to suit the convenience of the advocate
concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has
frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any
rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special
reason” for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the
Code.
14. If any court finds that the day-to day examination
of witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be
complied with due to the non-cooperation of the accused
or his counsel the court can adopt any of the measures
indicated in the sub-section i.e. remanding the accused
to custody or imposing cost on the party who wants such
adjournments (the cost must be commensurate with the
loss suffered by the witnesses, including the expenses to
– 49 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
attend the court). Another option is, when the accused is
absent and the witness is present to be examined, the
court can cancel his bail, if he is on bail (unless an
application is made on his behalf seeking permission for
his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present
even in his absence provided the accused gives an
undertaking in writing that he would not dispute his
identity as the particular accused in the case.)
44. Therefore, upon considering the entire order
sheets, and more generally the order sheet dated
27.03.2026, the Court has found that there is non-
cooperation by the advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12,
in collusion with accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12, thereby
protracting trial, therefore, as per the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman
Ali (stated supra), an advocate from the DLADC, by name
Sri. Manjunath Allalli, is appointed. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that
appointing the advocate Sri. Manjunath Allalli is not the
choice of the accused and therefore constitutes a violation
of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
– 50 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
45. Upon considering the entire order sheet as
produced by both sides, it is found that there was
continuous interference in trial by making one or another
attempt and also that on 23.07.2026, a high drama was
created, as reflected in the order sheet, wherein an event
occurred involving threats made to the Sessions Judge by
the advocates appearing for the accused. Therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge, without any alternative way, and in
accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as above stated, has appointed an advocate as
Amicus Curiae from the DLADC system.
46. It is worthwhile to note here that the mechanism
of appointing an advocate from DLADC is evolved by the
National Legal Services Authority and implemented by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority throughout the
State of Karnataka and in other States by their respective
State Legal Services Authorities. In order to achieve the
object and principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the procedure followed by the learned
– 51 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Sessions Judge is found to be completely in accordance with
law and cannot be found fault with, particularly in light of
the events recorded in the order sheets during the course of
trial.
47. On the very same day, the learned Amicus
Curiae has cross-examined the witnesses, who had already
been examined-in-chief by the prosecution. It is recorded
that PW.35 is fully cross-examined by the DLADC for
accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 and the advocate for accused
No.10 submitted that he will adopt the cross-examination of
accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12. The other witnesses were also
cross-examined. The prosecution has examined all
witnesses and the DLADC had cross-examined the
witnesses on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12. Thus, the
procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is
completely in accordance with the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
– 52 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
48. It is worthwhile to extract the guidelines issued
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir
Usman Ali (stated supra), at Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of
Clause-V in paragraph No.37:
“a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the
Court shall satisfy itself whether the noncooperation is in
active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is
so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may,
if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to
show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.
b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with
lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with
the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded,
appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date
for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.”
49. It is worthwhile to make some observations
regarding the conduct and the manner in which the
advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 appearing in the
Sessions case, as recorded in the order sheet dated
27.03.2026. It is recorded that the advocate for accused
Nos.1 to 9 and 12 has threatened the witnesses by showing
– 53 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
his finger. Though the advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and
12 has later apologized, it was nevertheless a deliberate
attempt to intimidate the witnesses appearing to give
evidence on behalf of the prosecution. This conduct of the
advocate appearing for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 amounts
to interference with the administration of justice as the
witnesses are the eyes and ears of the Court.
50. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has
recorded that during the course of evidence of PW.4, PW.4
has submitted that, he is facing threat in this case and not
to depose against accused No.1 and also there is an
attempt to get involving himself in the POCSO case.
Therefore, this is the effort made by accused No.1 to
threaten the witnesses. Therefore, upon finding that there is
non-cooperation by accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 as well as
advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 in the Sessions
Court, inevitably the learned Sessions Judge has appointed
DLADC Advocate as Amicus Curie for accused Nos.1 to 9
and 12 for further trial.
– 54 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
51. It is recorded in the order sheet that the
witnesses who had not been cross-examined by the
advocate for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 have been cross-
examined by the learned Amicus Curiae appointed through
the DLADC. It is worthwhile to mention here that, as per the
appearance recorded on 27.03.2026 and as noted earlier on
09.03.2026, one Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, stated to
be a Member of the Bar Association, Ballari, had entered
appearance by filing vakalath on behalf of accused Nos.1 to
9 and 12, along with the previous advocate.
52. Upon considering the order sheet dated
27.03.2026, at about 4.00 p.m. as recorded during
recording of evidence, previous advocate,
Sri.S.Rangaswamy for accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 (learned
advocate for the petitioners and learned AAG for respondent
No.2 submitted that the name ‘SRS’ means Sri. S.
Rangaswamy), by bringing 8 to 10 advocates from Ballari
made interference during recording of the evidence and
stood staring in the Court hall for about ten minutes with
– 55 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
crossed arms. Also, when the Sessions Court informed the
advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, that the Court has
appointed Amicus Curiae in view of the principle of law laid
down by the Ho’ble Supreme Court, the said advocate said
he does not care about the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the Circular issued by this Court. It is
worthwhile to extract the observations made by the learned
Sessions Judge in the order sheet dated 27.03.2026:
“At about 04.00, during recording of evidence,
previous counsel Sri. SRS Advocate, for A1 to 9 and
12, by bringing 8 to 10 advocates from Bellari
made interference during the recording of the
evidence and stood staring at the court for about
10 minutes with crossed arms. When this court has
informed the counsel that it has appointed Amicus
Curie in view of directions of the Honorable
Supreme Court of India in the case of the Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir
Usman Ali, 2025 INSC 1155 and the Circular
No.MISC No. HCLC 32/25, dated 22.11.2025, he
and 8 to 10 advocates accompanied by him submits
that they don’t care about direction of the Supreme
Court and circular of Karnataka in this area. SRS
– 56 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
advocate files memo of appearance for Accused
No.1 to 9 and Vakalat for Accused No.12.”
53. This Sessions case is a clear example of how the
accused are attempting to make a mockery of justice. The
above observations made by the learned Sessions Judge
and recorded in the order sheets clearly show that the
Advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, has colluded with accused
Nos.1 to 9 and 12 personally in order to ensure that trial
does not proceed continuously, thereby causing deliberate
interference and interruption. The Advocate, Sri. S.
Rangaswamy, in the Sessions case appearing for accused
Nos.1 to 9 and 12 has not conducted the case in a
professional manner; though he accepted the brief and filed
vakalath but he has acted in a manner detrimental to the
judiciary, which is nothing but threatening the judicial
system. Further, the conduct of the advocate, Sri.S.
Rangaswamy, as recorded in the order sheets, in
obstructing the proceedings, amounts to criminal contempt
of Court. Moreover, the conduct of Sri. S. Rangaswamy also
– 57 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
amounts to obstructing a public servant in the discharge of
public duties and to intentional insult and interruption of a
public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding, thereby
attracting offences under Sections 186 and 228 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18605 (Sections Sections 221 and 267 of
the BNS, 2023).
54. Now let me make observations on the manner
in which the learned counsel Sri S. Rangaswamy, has
argued on the case is to be observed and considered here.
55. As observed above, and as recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge in the proceedings of the Sessions
Case, Sri S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, virtually threatened
the Sessions Judge by raising his hands and pointing his
finger at the Court, and by bringing 8 to 10 advocates with
him. This conduct amounts to nothing but an attempt to
threaten the Court and scuttle the judicial process. It cannot
be said that these were stray incidents; rather, the
5
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘
– 58 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
advocate, Sri S. Rangaswamy, consciously engaged in all
these acts. Therefore, he is liable to be subjected to
appropriate action.
56. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
CHETAK CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs OM PRAKASH AND
OTHERS6, reminds the Lawyers and Judges of their duties
and functions and towards dispensation of justice. The
words expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above
said case at paragraphs 16 and 17 should remind all of us
the duties of Lawyers’ and the Judges’ as to how they are
important in the voyage of justice. At paragraphs 16 and
17 their Lordships were pleased to observe as follows:
“16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be
permitted to browbeat the court or malign the
presiding officer with a view to get a favourable
order. Judges shall not be able to perform their
duties freely and fairly if such activities were
permitted and in the result administration of
justice would become a casualty and rule of law
would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged6
(1998) 4 SCC 577
– 59 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
to decide cases impartially and without any fear
or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed
to “terrorize” or “intimidate” Judges with a view to
“secure” orders which they want. This is basic and
fundamental and no civilised system of
administration of justice can permit it. We
certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the
part of any litigant to go “forum-shopping”. A
litigant cannot be permitted “choice” of the
“forum” and every attempt at “forum-shopping”
must be crushed with a heavy hand.
17. At the same time, it is of utmost
importance to remember that Judges must act as
impartial referees and decide cases objectively,
uninfluenced by any personal bias or prejudice. A
Judge should not allow his judicial position to be
compromised at any cost. This is essential for
maintaining the integrity of the institution and
public confidence in it. The credibility of this
institution rests on the fairness and impartiality of
the Judges at all levels. It is the principle of
highest importance for the proper administration
of justice that judicial powers must be exercised
impartially and within the bounds of law. Public
confidence in the judiciary rests on legitimacy of
judicial process. Sources of legitimacy are in the
– 60 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
impersonal application by the Judge of recognised
objective principles which owe their existence to a
system as distinguished from subjective moods,
predilections, emotions and prejudices. Judges
must always ensure that they do not allow the
credibility of the institution to be eroded. We must
always remember that justice must not only be
done but it must also be seen to be done.”
57. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE, IN RE7 has
observed that an Advocate being an Officer of the Court has
a duty to ensure smooth functioning of the Court and also
Lawyers are equal partners with the Judges in the
administration of justice.
58. The Lawyers play an important and pivotal role
in the administration of justice. The profession itself
requires the safeguarding of high moral standards. Since
the main job of lawyer is to assist the Court in dispensation
of justice, therefore, the Advocate cannot behave with the
Court in a disrespectful manner. But, in the Sessions Case,
7
AIR 2014 SC 850
– 61 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the way in which Sri S. Rangaswamy, advocate behavior is
amounting to derogatory to dignity and decorum of the
Court.
59. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
MAHABIR PRASAD SINGH v. M/S. JACKS AVIATION
PVT. LTD.8 has observed that the judicial function cannot
and should not be permitted to be stoneward by
browbeating or bullying methodology either it is by litigants
or by counsel. Therefore, this Court is compelled to make
the above observations what it transpired in the Court while
trial in Sessions case is going.
60. A client engages a lawyer for addressing his
grievances. The lawyer is not an agent of his client, but he
is dignified, responsible spokesman. The lawyer cannot
wear shoes of his client. The Court cannot satisfy both
parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the
Advocate – Sri S. Rangaswamy could not have stepped into
8
AIR 1999 SC 287
– 62 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it
is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the
Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming
dignity and decorum of the Court. What transpired in
Sessions Court, this Court observed the learned Advocate –
Sri.S.Rangswami has exceeded his limits while conducting
the Sessions case.
61. Therefore, upon considering the entire case on
record and the material produced before this Court at this
stage, there is no lapse of procedure committed by the
learned Sessions Judge for the reasons discussed above and
no prejudice is caused to the accused in conducting trial.
The accused and advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, have made
of possible attempts to protract trial and are causing
interruption repeatedly as observed above. Therefore, there
is no merit found in this petition.
62. Further, it is observed that on the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
– 63 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Sessions Judge has taken this case on top priority,
though there are other 32 custody cases pending before the
Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,
sitting at Gangavathi, and that taking only this case on top
priority shows that the learned Sessions Judge is acting with
vengeance against the accused. This submission cannot be
accepted and is hereby rejected for the reason that just
because the learned Sessions Judge has taken this case on
top priority is not the ground to infer that the learned
Sessions Judge is prejudiced or has any vengeance. There
may be 32 other custody cases, but there is no rule that
cases must be taken up one after another for trial; the
criterion is that Courts shall give priority to custody cases.
Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has given priority to
this case for the reason that accused No.1 is facing 16 cases
as per the submission made by the learned Additional
Advocate General and keeping in mind the sensitivity
involved in the case and also considering the submission
that accused No.1 is facing trial in 16 cases, among which
– 64 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
two are for offences of murder, and that after obtaining
anticipatory bail from this Court in Crl.P.No.100511/2024
dated 19.04.2024, accused No.1 is alleged to have
committed the murder of the deceased in the present case
as the deceased is eye witness in earlier murder case in
which accused No.1 is also accused. The learned Additional
Advocate General has furnished a copy of the order passed
in Crl.P.No.100511/2024 between Ramali @ Ramulu @
NTR and Others vs. State of Karnataka, in which
accused No.1 is arrayed as petitioner No.5. Therefore, after
receiving the benefit of anticipatory bail, the allegation is
that accused No.1 has committed murder of the deceased in
the present case. This is the allegation made by the
prosecution. Therefore, considering these factors, the
learned Sessions Judge has given priority to the present
case, which cannot be found fault with and therefore, the
conduct of trial by the learned Sessions Judge is completely
in consonance with the principle of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and mandatory provision under
– 65 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Section 309 of in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The learned
Sessions Judge has recorded the conduct and misbehaviour
of the advocate Sri. S. Rangaswamy in the order sheet as
stated above which is recorded in the order sheet dated
27.03.2026. This conduct of the advocate in the deposition
of PW-3 recorded on 09.03.2026.
63. On 28.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge has
recorded the conduct and misbehaviour of the advocate Sri.
S. Rangaswamy/SRS, and observed that the said advocate
had brought 8 to 10 advocates from Ballari, stood staring at
the Court for almost 15 minutes, hurled abuses and
interrupted the Court proceedings during recording of
evidence of witness, is contrary to with the principles of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and contrary to the
mandate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
– 66 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
64. It is worthwhile to extract the observations
recorded in the order sheet dated 28.03.2026, which reads
as follows:
“Accused No.12 is present and submits that, her
previous counsel Sri Rangaswamy/SRS, Advocate by
brining 8-10 Advocates from Ballari, stood staring to
the Court for almost 15 minutes, hurled abuses and
interrupted the Court proceedings during recording of
the evidence of witness. He has shown disrespect to
the directions of the Honorable Supreme Court of India
and the circular of the Honorable High Court of
Karnataka. She has regret for the act of her previous
counsel. He ought not to have misbehaved with the
Court. She has also scolded the said Advocate and
asked him to return the file and the fees. She is happy
with present DLADC and she is providing instructions
to the DLADC to conduct her case and case of her
husband/Accused No.1. She never gave shelter to any
Accused persons. She and her husband are falsely
implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to take up the
matter on day-to-day basis and dispose the same as
she is having her regular LLB classes.”
65. Also, during the progress of the trial before the
Sessions Court in the Sessions case, some henchmen of
– 67 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Accused No. 1, namely Parashuram, Anji, Shrikant, and
Naveen, threatened the charge sheet witness, namely
Ramesh alias Konda Rama, that if evidence is given in the
case, he would be murdered, and thereby criminally
intimidated and threatened the life of the witness. For which
the said witness, Ramesh alias Konda Rama, has lodged a
complaint before the Police, which has been registered as
FIR in Crime No. 56/2026 of Gangavathi Town Police Station
and produced along with the affidavit by the de facto
complainant. Therefore, as observed above, there is a
constant threat to the witnesses. Witnesses are the eyes
and ears of the Court. Therefore, it is necessary for the
State to give utmost importance to the protection of
witnesses.
66. This Court in Crl.P. No. 201407/2023 dated
29.01.2024 in the case of Ningappa and another vs. The
State of Karnataka has observed regarding protection of
witnesses in paragraphs Nos.41, 42, and 43 as follows:
– 68 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
“41. XXXX.XXXX.XXXX….. The witnesses are eyes and
ears of justice. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has issued guidelines regarding witness protection.
It is a common experience that in some cases the
witnesses are receiving threats from the goons
compelling the witness not to give evidence or coercion,
influencing the mind illegally, which affects free and fair
trial. Ultimately, this threat to the witnesses is affecting
administration of justice. Unless protection is given to
the witnesses there cannot be fair trial. The fair trial is a
fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
“WITNESSES IN MODERN TIMES
In the most universal connotation, the term
“witness” represents someone, who happens to
be in attendance at some happening, i.e. locus
delicti, and possesses vital information,
respectively, being an eye witness ab initio. In
other words, a witness is that dramatis personae
whose attendance in re is indispensable to
establish the happening. Jeremy Bentham defines
a witness as;
“those who are accustomed to reflect on
ideas, know well how much idea depend
on words. According to him, the word
witness is employed to mark two
different individuals or the same
individual in two different situations; the
one that of perceiving witness, that is
of one who has seen or heard or
learned by his senses the fact
concurring which he can give
– 69 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
information when examined and the
other that of a deposing witness, who
states in a court of justice the
information which he has acquired. The
term witness then may be applied to the
parties themselves who have an interest
in the case as well as to all those whom
it is commonly employed to designate.”
DEFINITION OF PROTECTION
The term “protection”, in common
parlance, implies either an attempt of guarding
or an effort to provide security. In law, the
protection refers to the safeguarding of the
interests of the vulnerable. As far as witnesses
are concerned, there is no definition of the word
protection in India. But the Indian legal system,
as it appears, hitherto does not pay attention to
the vulnerability of witnesses. In few statutes
like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), Prevention of
Terrorism Act (POTA) and Juvenile Justice Act,
there are provisions inserted for witness identity
protection. The Act empowered the concerned
judicial officer to take in- camera proceedings
and to protect the identity and address of the
witnesses. The Central Government may
transfer any case pending before a designated
court in that state to any other state if it thinks
that conducting such a trial may result in breach
of peace in that area or a grave risk to the
safety of the accused, witnesses, the public
prosecutor and the judge of the designated court
or any of them. This decision of the Central
Government, however, must be taken in
concurrence of the Chief Justice of India on a
motion moved on that behalf by the Attorney
General. These provisions aside, there is a
dearth of protective measures that could be used
– 70 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
for the benefit of the witnesses in criminal trials.
SIGNIFICANCE OF WITNESSES
In criminal justice structure of any state,
the witnesses perform the role of pillars of
justice, their presence being the most vital save
for plaintiff and accused. By taking pledge in
the name of god and deposing fearlessly, he
represents the sacrosanct and divine supremacy
of truth over evil and justice over
misdemeanour. The witness performs an
important public duty of assisting the court in
deciding on the guilt or otherwise of the accused
in the case. He submits himself to cross-
examination and cannot refuse to answer
questions on the ground of that the answer will
incriminate him.
When a witness agrees to testify in the
court of law, he undertakes a huge moral and
public responsibility on his shoulders. He assists
the court in reaching to the appropriate
conclusion by undertaking to give the true and
correct information about his knowledge in the
case. If he does not disclose the full information
or the correct information, he is deemed to be a
perjurer. If it is proved that he has given false
evidence in the court he will have to face a trial
under Section 191 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and, thereafter, may be imprisoned for a term
which may extend to seven years and fine under
section 193.
Universally, witnesses perform the critical
and fundamental duty of making path to push
offenders into the realm of justice. The
successful conclusion of each stage in criminal
proceedings depends on the co-operation and
support of the witnesses. In an adversarial
system, the role of witness becomes important
– 71 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
particularly at the trial stage, in which the
witnesses are subjected to cross examination
particularly oral, in public hearing, by the
prosecution lawyers to prove the guilt absolutely
without any uncertainty and ambiguity. There is
no dearth of reasons assigned to valuable role
performed by the witness in crime investigations
and criminal trials, the most prominent ones
being the growth of awareness in victims in
respect of criminal procedures and the steep
escalation in global terrorism & well thought-out
controlled pre-planned crime.
The witnesses play a pivotal role
particularly in offences pertaining security of
state, drug trafficking, serious offences like
murder, rape, robbery, dacoity wherein the
imprisonment may extend to death sentence.
The witnesses, most prominently sexual
victims/witnesses are genuinely feeble and most
vulnerable, especially those who have been
targeted by close family members or
acquaintances.
The prosecution largely depends upon oral
testimony of its witnesses for proving the
charges beyond reasonable doubt. It is for this
reason that witnesses need special protection in
many cases.
WITNESSES IN INDIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The Indian Constitution, which bestows
upon us a wide range of fundamental rights,
surprisingly overlooked witness protection.
India does not have any witness protection
programme so far, even when many
countries, not only developed but also
– 72 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
developing (e.g.. Albania), have the same.
The necessity of this law is very grave as
this would provide courage, safety and
authenticity to witnesses as well as restore
faith in criminal justice system in India.
The present judicial system has taken
witnesses completely for granted. Witnesses
are summoned to the court regardless their
financial situation and familial and
professional constraints. Nowadays, the
witnesses are so exposed to threats and have
become so helpless that the situation has put
the entire criminal justice system in an
alarming mode, to press on the urgent
requirement of witness protection laws.
In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab
(Swaran Singh, supra note 12 at 678),
Justice Wadhwa articulated his concern
regarding pathetic status of witnesses in
India as follows: “A witness in a criminal trial
may comefrom a far off place to find the case
adjourned. He has to come to the court many
times and at what cost to his own-self and
his family is not difficult to fathom. It has
become more or less a fashion to have a
criminal case adjourned again and again till
the witness tires and he gives up. It is the
game of unscrupulous lawyers to get the
adjournments for one excuse or the other till
a witness is threatened; he is abducted; he is
maimed, he is done away with; or even
bribed. There is no protection for him. In
adjourning the matter without any valid
cause a court unwittingly becomes party to
miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not
treated with respect in the court. He is
pushed out from the crowded courtroom by
the peon. He waits for the whole day and
then he finds that the matter is adjourned.
– 73 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
He has no place to sit and no place even to
have a glass of water. And when he does
appear in the court, he is subjected to
unchecked and prolonged examination and
cross- examination and finds himself in a
hopeless situation. For all these reasons and
others a person abhors becoming a witness.
It is the administration of justice that suffers.
Then appropriate diet money for a witness
is a far cry. Here again the process of
harassment starts and he decides not to get
the diet money at all. High Courts have to be
vigilant in these matters. Proper diet money
must be paid immediately to the witness (not
only when he is examined but for every
adjourned hearing) and even sent to him and
he should not be left to be harassed by the
subordinate staff. If the criminal justice
system is to be put on paper pedestal, the
lawyers and the sluggish state machinery.
Each trial should be properly monitored. Time
has come that all the courts, districts courts,
subordinate courts are linked to the High
Court with a computer and a proper check is
made on the adjournment and recording of
evidence. The Bar Council of India and the
State Bar Councils must play their part and
lend their support to put the criminal system
back on its trial. Perjury has also become a
way of life in the law courts. A trial judge
knows that the witness is telling a lie and is
going back on his previous statement, yet he
does not wish to punish him or even file a
complaint against him. He is required to sign
the complaint himself which deters him from
filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs
amendment to clause (b) of section 340(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect
as the High Court can direct any officer to
file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of
perjury, the court should resort to the use of
– 74 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
the provisions of law as contained in chapter
XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure“.
Some of the problems faced by the witnesses are
elaborated as follows:
1. Witnesses residing in remote towns and
villages find it extremely difficult to appear in
courts as their expenses are not reimbursed.
Many a times, they may be sole bread
winners of their families and might incur
losses in wages for days together, depending
upon adjournments.
2. The treatment which is given to witnesses is
not proper and dignified when they come to
the court to give evidence. The Malimath
Committee opined that the witnesses should
be treated with great respect and should be
considered as a guest of honour. When a
witness comes to the court, there is no one
to guide him as to where the court is, where
to wait for his turn to come or to give him
any other assistance that is required.
Similarly, other basic amenities and facilities
like drinking water, food and toilet are non-
existent in most courts.
3. Generally, ambience in court and other
conditions are not supportive and
encouraging for the witnesses who are willing
to help the courts in finding the truth based
on their oral testimony. In India, there is lot
of pressure on courts to dispose of the day-
to-day cases. There are lakhs of cases
pending in the court and disposal has become
very slow. Lack of infrastructural and other
facilities, less number of judges, absence of
parties in the court on the date of hearing,
adjournments sought by the advocates have
resulted in frequent postponement of
– 75 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
adjudication. This adjournment is
demoralizing and frustrating for a witness to
such an extent that they prompt them to
think several times whether to appear in the
court or not when called by the court through
summons. Because of these adjournments a
witness is most likely to give up the idea of
taking initiative and helping the court or
administrative machinery. This tendency of
the witness proves as a blessing for the
accused, which might get acquitted either
due to lack of evidence or benefit of doubt.
4. In order to get rid of cross-examination as
early as possible witness may either give
false evidence or turn hostile, that is,
retracting from his previous statements. The
former attorney general of India, Mr. Soli
Sorabjee, apologetically commented:
“Nothing shakes public confidence in the
criminal justice delivery system more than
the collapse of the prosecution owing to
witnesses turning hostile and retracting their
previous statements. Hostility of witnesses
resulting in failure of the prosecution has
surfaced as a prominent excuse for the high
rise in acquittals in criminal proceedingsCONCLUSION:
The role of witnesses in India
throughout various time frames has regained
its importance and inevitability in the criminal
trials. Indian culture has assigned a place of
prestige and stature to witnesses in ancient
and medieval periods and the witnesses were
treated with great respect and hence, it was
taken up by them to be a sacrosanct duty to
depose hence there was no requirement of
specific protection for them. In the modern
period, the importance of witnesses has been
– 76 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
retained, however, the respect and dignity is
lost in the process of the lengthy and tedious
process of the trials. Hence, the Indian Legal
system needs to reinstate that respect and
dignity to the witnesses to ensure fair trials
and victims being brought to justice in true
sense.”
(emphasis supplied by me)
**9″
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
RAMESH vs. STATE OF HARYANA10 had on occasion
to deal on the aspect that how menace the witnesses
are turning hostile and it is observed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as follows:
“40. In some of the judgments in past few years,
this Court has commented upon such peculiar
behavior of witnesses turning hostile and we
would like to quote from few such judgments.
In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, this Court
observed as under: (SCC pp. 104, para31)“31. It is matter of common
experience that in recent times there
has been sharp decline of ethical
values in public life even in developed
countries much less developing one,
like ours, where the ratio of decline is
higher. Even in ordinary cases,
witnesses are not inclined to depose
or their evidence is not found to be
credible by courts for manifold
reasons. One of the reasons may be9
** Courtesy: Witness Protection In Criminal Trials In India
Author by: Girish Abhyankar Asawari Abhyankar,
Published by: Thomson Reuters, First Edition in 2018
10
(2017) 1 SCC 529
– 77 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
that they do not have courage to
depose against an accused because of
threats to their life, more so when the
offenders are habitual criminals or
high-ups in the Government or close
to powers, which may be political,
economic or other powers including
muscle power.”
41. Likewise, in Zahira Habibullah (5) v. State of
Gujarat, this Court highlighted the problem
with following observations: ( SCC PP. 396-
98, paras 40-41)
“40. “Witnesses”, as Bentham said: “are
the eyes and ears of justice”. Hence, the
importance and primacy of the quality of
trial process. If the witness himself is
incapacitated from acting as eyes and
ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied
and paralyzed and it no longer can
constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation
may be due to several factors like the
witness being not in a position for
reasons beyond control, to speak the
truth in the court or due to negligence or
ignorance or some corrupt collusion.
Time has become ripe to act on account
of numerous experiences faced by the
court on account of frequent turning of
witnesses as hostile, either due to
threats, coercion, lures and monetary
considerations at the instance of those in
power, their henchmen and hirelings,
political clouts and patronage and
innumerable other corrupt practices
ingeniously adopted to smother and
stifle truth and realities coming out to
surface. Broader public and social
interest require that the victims of the
crime who are not ordinarily parties to
– 78 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
prosecution and the interests of State
representing by their presenting
agencies do not suffer… there comes the
need for protecting the witnesses. Time
has come when serious and undiluted
thoughts are to be bestowed for
protecting witnesses so that ultimate
truth presented before the Court and
justice triumphs and that the trial is not
reduced to mockery.”
41. The State has a definite role to play
in protecting the witnesses, to start with
at least in sensitive cases involving those
in power, who has political patronage
and could wield muscle and money
power, to avert trial getting tainted and
derailed and truth becoming a casualty.
As a protector of its citizens it has to
ensure that during a trial in Court the
witness could safely depose truth
without any fear of being haunted by
those against whom he had deposed.
Every State has a constitutional
obligation and duty to protect the life
and liberty of its citizens. That is the
fundamental requirement for observance
of the rule of law. There cannot be any
deviation from this requirement because
of any extraneous factors like, caste,
creed, religion, political belief or
ideology. Every State is supposed to
know these fundamental requirements
and this needs no retaliation (sic
repetition). We can only say this with
regard to the criticism levelled against
the State of Gujarat. Some legislative
enactments like the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 (in short the “TADA Act“) have
taken note of the reluctance shown by
– 79 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
witnesses to depose against people with
muscle power, money power or political
power which has become the order of
the day. If ultimately truth is to be
arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice
have to be protected so that the
interests of justice do not get
incapacitated in the sense of making the
proceedings before Courts mere mock
trials as are usually seen in movies.”
42. Likewise, in Sakshi v. Union of India11 , the
menace of witnesses turning hostile was
again described in the following words: (SCC
pp.544-45, para 32) .
“32. The mere sight of the accused
may induce an element of extreme
fear in the mind of the victim or the
witnesses or can put them in a state
of shock. In such a situation he or she
may not be able to give full details of
the incident which may result in
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, a
screen or some such arrangement can
be made where the victim or
witnesses do not have to undergo the
trauma of seeing the body or the face
of the accused. Often the questions
put in cross-examination are
purposely designed to embarrass or
confuse the victims of rape and child
abuse. The object is that out of the
feeling of shame or embarrassment,
the victim may not speak out or give
details of certain acts committed by
the accused. It will, therefore, be
better if the questions to be put by the
accused in cross-examination are
given in writing to the Presiding
Officer of the Court, who may put the
– 80 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
same to the victim or witnesses in a
language which is not embarrassing.
There can hardly be any objection to
the other suggestion given by the
petitioner that whenever a child or
victim of rape is required to give
testimony, sufficient breaks should be
given as and when required. The
provisions of sub-section (2) of section
327 Cr.P.C. should also apply in
inquiry or trial of offences under
Section 354 and 377 IPC.”
43. In State v. Sanjeev Nanda 12, the Court
felt constrained in reiterating the growing
disturbing trend: (SCC pp. 486-87, paras 99-
101)
“99. Witness turning hostile is a major
disturbing factor faced by the criminal
courts in India. Reasons are many for
the witnesses turning hostile, but of late,
we see, especially in high profile cases,
there is a regularity in the witnesses
turning hostile, either due to monetary
consideration or by other tempting
offers which undermine the entire
criminal justice system and people carry
the impression that the mighty and
powerful can always get away from the
clutches of law thereby, eroding people’s
faith in the system.
100. This court in State of U.P. v. Ramesh
Mishra and Anr. [AIR 1996 SC 2766]
held that it is equally settled law that
the evidence of hostile witness could not
be totally rejected, if spoken in favour of
the prosecution or the accused, but it
can be subjected to closest scrutiny and
that portion of the evidence which is
– 81 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
consistent with the case of the
prosecution or defence may be
accepted. In K. Anbazhagan v.
Superintendent of Police and Anr., (AIR
2004 SC 524), this Court held that if a
court finds that in the process the credit
of the witness has not been completely
shaken, he may after reading and
considering the evidence of the witness
as a whole with due caution, accept, in
the light of the evidence on the record
that part of his testimony which it finds
to be creditworthy and act upon it. This
is exactly what was done in the instant
case by both the trial court and the High
Court and they found the accused guilty.
101. We cannot, however, close our eyes to
the disturbing fact in the instant case
where even the injured witness, who
was present on the spot, turned hostile.
This Court in Manu Sharma v. State
(NCT of Delhi)6, and in Zahira
Habibullah Shaikh (5) v. State of
Gujarat 10 had highlighted the glaring
defects in the system like non-recording
of the statements correctly by the police
and the retraction of the statements by
the prosecution witness due to
intimidation, inducement and other
methods of manipulation. Courts,
however, cannot shut their eyes to the
reality. If a witness becomes hostile to
subvert the judicial process, the Courts
shall not stand as a mute spectator and
every effort should be made to bring
home the truth. Criminal judicial system
cannot be overturned by those gullible
witnesses who act under pressure,
inducement or intimidation. Further,
Section 193 of the IPC imposes
– 82 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
punishment for giving false evidence but
is seldom invoked.”
44. On the analysis of various cases, following
reasons can be discerned which make
witnesses retracting their statements before
the Court and turning hostile:
“(i) Threat/intimidation.
(ii) Inducement by various means.
(iii) Use of muscle and money power
by the accused.
(iv) Use of Stock Witnesses.
(v) Protracted Trials.
(vi) Hassles faced by the witnesses
during investigation and trial.
(vii) Non-existence of any clear-cut
legislation to check hostility of
witness.”
45. Threat and intimidation has been one of the
major causes for the hostility of witnesses.
Bentham said: “witnesses are the eyes and
ears of justice”. When the witnesses are not
able to depose correctly in the court of law, it
results in low rate of conviction and many
times even hardened criminals escape the
conviction. It shakes public confidence in the
criminal justice delivery system. It is for this
reason there has been a lot of discussion on
witness protection and from various quarters
demand is made for the State to play a
definite role in coming out with witness
protection programme, at least in sensitive
– 83 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
cases involving those in power, who have
political patronage and could wield muscle
and money power, to avert trial getting
tainted and derailed and truth becoming a
casualty. A stern and emphatic message to
this effect was given in Zahira Habibullah’s
case10 as well.
46. Justifying the measures to be taken for
witness protection to enable the witnesses to
depose truthfully and without fear, Justice
Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of
Criminal Justice System, 2003 has remarked
as under:
“11.3 Another major problem is about
safety of witnesses and their family
members who face danger at different
stages. They are often threatened and
the seriousness of the threat depends
upon the type of the case and the
background of the accused and his
family. Many times crucial witnesses
are threatened or injured prior to their
testifying in the court. If the witness is
still not amenable he may even be
murdered. In such situations the
witness will not come forward to give
evidence unless he is assured of
protection or is guaranteed anonymity
of some form of physical
disguise…Time has come for a
comprehensive law being enacted for
protection of the witness and
members of his family.”
43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
MAHENDER CHAWLA AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF
– 84 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
INDIA AND OTHERS11 were pleased to formulate
“Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” at paragraph No.26.
The said “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” observed at
paragraph No.26, which reads as under:
“26. At this stage, we reproduce Witness
Protection Scheme, 2018 as filed, in its entirety:
“WITNESS PROTECTION SCHEME, 2018
PREFACE
Aims & Objective:
The ability of a witness to give testimony in a
judicial setting or to cooperate with law
enforcement agencies and investigating officers
without fear of intimidation or reprisal is essential
in maintaining the rule of law. The objective of
this Scheme is to ensure that the investigation,
prosecution and trial of criminal offences is not
prejudiced because witnesses are intimidated or
frightened to give evidence without protection
from violent or other criminal recrimination. It
aims to promote law enforcement by facilitating
the protection of persons who are involved
directly or indirectly in providing assistance to
criminal law enforcement agencies and overall
administration of justice. Witnesses need to be
given the confidence to come forward to assist
law enforcement and judicial authorities with full
assurance of safety. It is aimed to identify series
of measures that may be adopted to safeguard
witnesses and their family members from
intimidation and threats against their lives,
reputation and property.
11
(2019) 14 SCC 615
– 85 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Need and justification for the scheme:
Jeremy Bentham has said that “Witnesses are
the eyes and ears of justice”. In cases involving
influential people, witnesses turn hostile because
of threat to life and property. Witnesses find that
there is no legal obligation by the State for
extending any security.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held
in State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing [State of
Gujarat v. Anirudhsing, (1997) 6 SCC 514 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 946] that: “It is the salutary duty of
every witness who has the knowledge of the
commission of the crime, to assist the State in
giving evidence.” Malimath Committee on Reforms
of Criminal Justice System, 2003 said in its report
that ‘By giving evidence relating to the
commission of an offence, he performs a sacred
duty of assisting the court to discover the truth’.
In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999]
while defining fair trial Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India observed ‘If the witnesses get threatened or
are forced to give false evidence that also would
not result in a fair trial’.
First ever reference to witness protection in
India came in 14th Report of the Law Commission
of India in 1958. Further reference on the subject
is found in 154th and 178th Report of the Law
Commission of India. 198th Report of the Law
Commission of India titled as “Witness Identity
Protection and Witness Protection Programmes,
2006” is dedicated to the subject.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
in Zahira case [Zahira Habibulla H.
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , “no country can afford to
– 86 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
expose its morally correct citizens to the peril of
being harassed by anti-social elements like rapists
and murderers”. The 4th National Police
Commission Report, 1980 noted “prosecution
witnesses are turning hostile because of pressure
of accused and there is need of regulation to
check manipulation of witnesses”.
The legislature has introduced Section 195-A
IPC in 2006 making criminal intimidation of
witnesses a criminal offence punishable with
seven years of imprisonment. Likewise, in
statues, namely, the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015; the Whistle
Blowers Protection Act, 2011; the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act),
2012; and National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also provides
for safeguarding witnesses against the threats.
However, no formal structured programme has
been introduced as on date for addressing the
issue of witness protection in a holistic manner.
In recent years extremism, terrorism and
organised crimes have grown and are becoming
stronger and more diverse. In the investigation
and prosecution of such crimes, it is essential that
witnesses have trust in criminal justice system.
Witnesses need to have the confidence to come
forward to assist law enforcement and prosecuting
agencies. They need to be assured that they will
receive support and protection from intimidation
and the harm that criminal groups might seek to
inflict upon them in order to discourage them
from cooperating with the law enforcement
agencies and deposing before the court of law.
Hence, it is high time that a scheme is put in
place for addressing the issues of witness
protection uniformly in the country.
Scope of the Scheme:
– 87 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
Witness protection may be as simple as
providing a police escort to the witness up to the
courtroom or using modern communication
technology (such as audio video means) for
recording of testimony. In other more complex
cases, involving organised criminal group,
extraordinary measures are required to ensure
the witness’s safety viz. anonymity, offering
temporary residence in a safe house, giving a new
identity, and relocation of the witness at an
undisclosed place. However, witness protection
needs of a witness may have to be viewed on
case-to-case basis depending upon their
vulnerability and threat perception.
1. Short Title and Commencement.–(a)
The Scheme shall be called “Witness Protection
Scheme, 2018”.
(b) It shall come into force from the date of
Notification.
Part I
2. Definitions.–
(a) “Code” means the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(b) “Concealment of Identity of Witness”
means and includes any condition prohibiting
publication or revealing, in any manner, directly
or indirectly, of the name, address and other
particulars which may lead to the identification of
the witness during investigation, trial and post-
trial stage;
(c) “Competent Authority” means a
Standing Committee in each District chaired by
District and Sessions Judge with Head of the
Police in the District as Member and Head of the
– 88 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Prosecution in the District as its Member
Secretary;
(d) "Family Member" includes
parents/guardian, spouse, live-in partner,
siblings, children, grandchildren of the witness;
(e) “Form” means “Witness Protection
Application Form” appended to this Scheme; …
(f) “In Camera Proceedings” means
proceedings wherein the Competent
Authority/Court allows only those persons who are
necessary to be present while hearing and
deciding the witness protection application or
deposing in the court;
(g) “Live Link” means and include a live
video link or other such arrangement whereby a
witness, while not being physically present in the
courtroom for deposing in the matter or
interacting with the competent authority;
(h) “Witness Protection Measures” means
measures spelt out in Clause 7, Part III, Part IV
and Part V of the Scheme;
(i) “Offence” means those offences which
are punishable with death or life imprisonment or
an imprisonment up to seven years and above
and also offences punishable under Sections 354,
354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D and 509 IPC;
(j) “Threat Analysis Report” means a
detailed report prepared and submitted by the
Head of the Police in the District investigating the
case with regard to the seriousness and credibility
of the threat perception to the witness or his
family members. It shall contain specific details
about the nature of threats faced by the witness
or his family to their life, reputation or property
– 89 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
apart from analysing the extent, the person or
persons making the threat, have the intent,
motive and resources to implement the threats.
It shall also categorize the threat perception
apart from suggesting the specific witness
protection measures which deserves to be taken
in the matter;
(k) “Witness” means any person, who
possess information or document about any
offence;
(l) “Witness Protection Application”
means an application moved by the witness in the
prescribed form before a competent authority
through its Member Secretary for seeking Witness
Protection Order. It can be moved by the witness,
his family member, his duly engaged counsel or
IO/SHO/SDPO/Jail Superintendent concerned and
the same shall preferably be got forwarded
through the Prosecutor concerned;
(m) “Witness Protection Fund” means the
fund created for bearing the expenses incurred
during the implementation of Witness Protection
Order passed by the Competent Authority under
this scheme;
(n) “Witness Protection Order” means an
order passed by the Competent Authority
detailing the witness protection measures to be
taken;
(o) “Witness Protection Cell” means a
dedicated Cell of State/UT Police or Central Police
Agencies assigned the duty to implement the
witness protection order.
– 90 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Part II
3. Categories of witness as per threat
perception.–
Category ‘A’: Where the threat extends to
life of witness or his family members and their
normal way of living is affected for a substantial
period, during investigation/trial or thereafter.
Category ‘B’: Where the threat extends to
safety, reputation or property of the witness or his
family members, during the investigation/trial or
thereafter.
Category ‘C’: Where the threat is moderate
and extends to harassment or intimidation of the
witness or his family member’s, reputation or
property, during the investigation/trial or
thereafter.
4. State Witness Protection Fund.–
(a) There shall be a Fund, namely, the Witness
Protection Fund from which the expenses incurred
during the implementation of Witness Protection
Order passed by the Competent Authority and
other related expenditure, shall be met.
(b) The Witness Protection Fund shall
comprise the following:–
(i) Budgetary allocation made in the Annual
Budget by the State Government;
(ii) Receipt of amount of costs
imposed/ordered to be deposited by the
courts/tribunals in the Witness Protection Fund;
(iii) Donations/contributions from
Philanthropist / Charitable institutions /
– 91 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Organisations and individuals permitted by
Central/State Governments.
(iv) Funds contributed under Corporate Social
Responsibility.
(c) The said Fund shall be operated by the
Department/Ministry of Home under State/UT
Government.
5. Filing of application before
competent authority.– The application for
seeking protection order under this scheme can
be filed in the prescribed form before the
Competent Authority of the district concerned
where the offence is committed, through its
Member Secretary along with supporting
documents, if any.
6. Procedure for processing the
application.–(a) As and when an application is
received by the Member Secretary of the
Competent Authority, in the prescribed form, he
shall forthwith pass an order for calling for the
Threat Analysis Report from the ACP/DSP in
charge of the concerned Police Sub-Division.
(b) Depending upon the urgency in the
matter owing to imminent threat, the Competent
Authority can pass orders for interim protection of
the witness or his family members during the
pendency of the application.
(c) The Threat Analysis Report shall be
prepared expeditiously while maintaining full
confidentiality and it shall reach the Competent
Authority within five working days of receipt of
the order.
(d) The Threat Analysis Report shall
categorize the threat perception and also include
– 92 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
suggestive protection measures for providing
adequate protection to the witness or his family.
(e) While processing the application for
witness protection, the Competent Authority shall
also interact preferably in person and if not
possible through electronic means with the
witness and/or his family members/employers or
any other person deemed fit so as to ascertain the
witness protection needs of the witness.
(f) All the hearings on Witness Protection
Application shall be held in-camera by the
Competent Authority while maintaining full
confidentiality.
(g) An application shall be disposed of within
five working days of receipt of Threat Analysis
Report from the Police Authorities.
(h) The Witness Protection Order passed by
the Competent Authority shall be implemented by
the Witness Protection Cell of the State/UT or the
Trial Court, as the case may be. Overall
responsibility of implementation of all witness
protection orders passed by the Competent
Authority shall lie on the Head of the Police in the
State/UT.
However the Witness Protection Order passed
by the Competent Authority for change of identity
and/or relocation shall be implemented by the
Department of Home of the State/UT concerned.
(i) Upon passing of a Witness Protection
Order, the Witness Protection Cell shall file a
monthly follow-up report before the Competent
Authority.
(j) In case, the Competent Authority finds
that there is a need to revise the Witness
– 93 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Protection Order or an application is moved in this
regard, and upon completion of trial, a fresh
Threat Analysis Report shall be called from the
ACP/DSP in charge of the police sub-division
concerned.
7. Types of protection measures.– The
witness protection measures ordered shall be
proportionate to the threat and shall be for a
specific duration not exceeding three months at a
time. These may include:
(a) Ensuring that witness and accused do not
come face to face during investigation or trial;
(b) Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;
(c) Arrangement with the telephone company
to change the witness’s telephone number or
assign him or her an unlisted telephone number;
(d) Installation of security devices in the
witness’s home such as security doors, CCTV,
alarms, fencing, etc.;
(e) Concealment of identity of the witness by
referring to him/her with the changed name or
alphabet;
(f) Emergency contact persons for the
witness;
(g) Close protection, regular patrolling
around the witness’s house;
(h) Temporary change of residence to a
relative’s house or a nearby town;
(i) Escort to and from the court and provision
of government vehicle or a State funded
conveyance for the date of hearing;
– 94 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
(j) Holding of in-camera trials;
(k) Allowing a support person to remain
present during recording of statement and
deposition;
(l) Usage of specially designed vulnerable
witness court rooms which have special
arrangements like live video links, one way
mirrors and screens apart from separate passages
for witnesses and accused, with option to modify
the image of face of the witness and to modify the
audio feed of the witness’ voice, so that he/she is
not identifiable;
(m) Ensuring expeditious recording of
deposition during trial on a day-to-day basis
without adjournments;
(n) Awarding time to time periodical financial
aids/grants to the witness from Witness Protection
Fund for the purpose of relocation, sustenance or
starting a new vocation/profession, as may be
considered necessary;
(o) Any other form of protection measures
considered necessary.
8. Monitoring and review.– Once the
protection order is passed, the Competent
Authority would monitor its implementation and
can review the same in terms of follow-up reports
received in the matter. However, the Competent
Authority shall review the Witness Protection
Order on a quarterly basis based on the monthly
follow-up report submitted by the Witness
Protection Cell.
Part III
9. Protection of identity.– During the
course of investigation or trial of any serious
– 95 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
offence, an application for seeking identity
protection can be filed in the prescribed form
before the Competent Authority through its
Member Secretary.
Upon receipt of the application, the Member
Secretary of the Competent Authority shall call for
the Threat Analysis Report. The Competent
Authority shall examine the witness or his family
members or any other person it deem fit to
ascertain whether there is necessity to pass an
identity protection order.
During the course of hearing of the
application, the identity of the witness shall not be
revealed to any other person, which is likely to
lead to the witness identification. The Competent
Authority can thereafter dispose of the application
as per material available on record.
Once, an order for protection of identity of
witness is passed by the Competent Authority, it
shall be the responsibility of the Witness
Protection Cell to ensure that identity of such
witness/his or her family members including
name/parentage/occupation/address/digital
footprints are fully protected.
As long as identity of any witness is protected
under an order of the Competent Authority, the
Witness Protection Cell shall provide details of
persons who can be contacted by the witness in
case of emergency.
Part IV
10. Change of identity.– In appropriate
cases, where there is a request from the witness
for change of identity and based on the Threat
Analysis Report, a decision can be taken for
– 96 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
conferring a new identity to the witness by the
Competent Authority.
Conferring new identities includes new
name/profession/parentage and providing
supporting documents acceptable by the
government agencies. The new identities should
not deprive the witness from existing
educational/professional/property rights.
Part V
11. Relocation of witness.– In
appropriate cases, where there is a request from
the witness for relocation and based on the Threat
Analysis Report, a decision can be taken for
relocation of the witness by the Competent
Authority.
The Competent Authority may pass an order
for witness relocation to a safer place within the
State/UT or territory of the Indian Union keeping
in view the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the
witness. The expenses shall be borne from the
Witness Protection Fund.
Part VI
12. Witnesses to be apprised of the
Scheme.– Every State shall give wide publicity
to this Scheme. The IO and the Court shall inform
witnesses about the existence of “Witness
Protection Scheme” and its salient features.
13. Confidentiality and preservation of
records.– All stakeholders including the Police,
the Prosecution Department, Court Staff, Lawyers
from both sides shall maintain full confidentiality
and shall ensure that under no circumstance, any
record, document or information in relation to the
proceedings under this scheme shall be shared
– 97 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
with any person in any manner except with the
trial court/appellate court and that too, on a
written order.
All the records pertaining to proceedings
under this scheme shall be preserved till such
time the related trial or appeal thereof is pending
before a court of law. After one year of disposal of
the last court proceedings, the hard copy of the
records can be weeded out by the Competent
Authority after preserving the scanned soft copies
of the same.
14. Recovery of expenses.– In case the
witness has lodged a false complaint, the Home
Department of the concerned Government can
initiate proceedings for recovery of the
expenditure incurred from the Witness Protection
Fund.
15. Review.– In case the witness or the
police authorities are aggrieved by the decisions
of the Competent Authority, a review application
may be filed within 30 days of passing of the
orders by the Competent Authority.
Witness Protection Application
under
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018
Before,
(To be filed in duplicate)
The Competent Authority,
District………………
Application for:
1. Witness Protection
2. Witness Identity Protection
3. New Identity
4. Witness Relocation
– 98 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Particulars of the Witness (Fill in Capital):
Name
AgeGender (Male/Female/Other)
Father’s/Mother’s Name
Residential Address
Name and other details of family members of
the witness who are receiving or perceiving
threats
Contact details (Mobile/e-mail)
Particulars of criminal matter:
FIR No.
Under Section
Police Station
District
D.D. No. (in case FIR not yet registered)
Cr. Case No. (in case of private complaint)
Particulars of the accused (if
available/known):
Name
Address
Phone No.
Email id
Name & other particulars of the person
giving/suspected of giving threatsNature of threat perception. Please give brief
details of threat received in the matter with
specific date, place, mode and words used
– 99 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026HC-KAR
Type of witness protection measures
prayed by/for the witness
Details of interim/Urgent Witness
Protection needs, if requiredApplicant/witness can use extra sheets for
giving additional information.
______________________
(Full Name with signature)
Date: ………………
Place: ………………
UNDERTAKING
1. I undertake that I shall fully cooperate with
the competent authority and the Department of
Home of the State and Witness Protection Cell.
2. I certify that the information provided by me
in this application is true and correct to my best
knowledge and belief.
3. I understand that in case, information given
by me in this application is found to be false, the
competent authority under the scheme reserves the
right to recover the expenses incurred on me from
out of the Witness Protection Fund.
______________________
(Full Name with signature)
Date: ………………
Place: ………………”
36. We, accordingly, direct that:
36.1. This Court has given its imprimatur to the
Scheme prepared by Respondent 1 which is
approved hereby. It comes into effect forthwith.
36.2. The Union of India as well as the States
and the Union Territories shall enforce the Witness
Protection Scheme, 2018 in letter and spirit.
– 100 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
36.3. It shall be the “law” under Articles
141/142 of the Constitution, till the enactment of
suitable parliamentary and/or State legislations on
the subject.
36.4. In line with the aforesaid provisions
contained in the Scheme, in all the district courts in
India, Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complexes
shall be set up by the States and Union Territories.
This should be achieved within a period of one year
i.e. by the end of the year 2019. The Central
Government should also support this endeavour of
the States/Union Territories by helping them
financially and otherwise.”
67. Recently, the Karnataka State has enforced a
scheme namely the Karnataka Witness Protection Scheme,
2026. The police and the trial Court shall ensure strict
implementation of the Karnataka Witness Protection
Scheme, 2026. Therefore, the concerned authorities shall
ensure issuance of directions in this regard under the said
scheme and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to ensure protection of witnesses.
68. Therefore, upon considering the recorded
conduct and misbehaviour of the Advocate, Sri. S.
Rangaswamy, as recorded in the order sheet extracted
– 101 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
above, Advocate, Sri. S. Rangaswamy, is amenable to face
criminal contempt of Court and charges under Sections 186
and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 221 and
267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and he would be
referred for disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka
State Bar Council, Bengaluru.
69. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as
discussed, there is no procedural lapse committed by the
learned Sessions Judge and the proceedings in conducting
trial in S.C.No.5/2026 pending on the file of I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (Sitting at Gangavathi),
is completely in accordance with the procedures mandated
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Bharatiya
Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita and is completely following the
principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
above stated. Therefore, the petition is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary cost.
– 102 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
70. Accordingly, I answer Point No.(i) in the
‘negative’ and Point No.(ii) in the ‘affirmative’.
71. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- payable by accused Nos.1 to 9
and 12 to the District Legal Services Authority,
Koppal.
ii) The learned Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer of
the Court of I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, shall
continue the further proceedings as per law and
dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
iii) For the reasons stated in the order, place this
matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High
Court of Karnataka and also before the learned
Advocate General requesting to consider
– 103 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
initiating proceedings for criminal contempt of
Court against Sri S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, at
the discretion of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice
and the learned Advocate General.
iv) The Additional Registrar General is directed to
place this order before the Karnataka State Bar
Council, Bengaluru, to take necessary action/
initiate proceedings against Sri S.Rangaswamy,
Advocate, for his misconduct as stated above.
v) The Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court of the
Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, is directed to file
complaint against Sri S.Rangaswamy, Advocate,
for the offence punishable under Sections 186
and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Sections 221 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) before the concerned
jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class
– 104 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5639
CRL.P No. 100680 of 2026
HC-KAR
Court, in whose jurisdiction the Court of
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,
sitting at Gangavathi, is situated.
vi) The Additional Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad, is directed
to communicate operative portion of this order
immediately to the Court of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Koppal and to the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at
Gangavathi, through e-mail, fax and official
telephone numbers of the Court of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Koppal and to the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,
sitting at Gangavathi.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
MRK para Nos.1 to 28.
PMP para Nos.29 to end.
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
