ORDER : Respondent No.1 Nithyananda Swamy @ A Rajashekaran is being tried for the offences punishable under sections 295A, 376, 377, 420, 506(1) & 120B IPC before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in S.C.No.86/2014. He was admitted to bail by orders of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2328/2010 c/w. Criminal Petition Nos.2344/2010 and 2329/2010 dated 11.06.2010, and was ordered to be released subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/and two local solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court; (ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction without the permission of the jurisdictional court; (iii) He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days before the jurisdictional Police; (iv) He shall also not undertake any preaching or classes except performing yoga till the investigation is completed and (v) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or the material evidence. 2. Subsequently condition Nos.2 and 3 were relaxed by orders of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2328/2010. Though copy of this order is not produced either by the petitioner or by the respondents, yet, in the order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.86/2014 on the application filed by respondent No.1 under section 273 read with section 317 Cr.P.C., dated 09.12.2019, it is observed that, I.A.No.3/2011 was moved by accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.2328/2010 before the High Court of Karnataka and the same was allowed by order dated 16.12.2011, thereby relaxing condition Nos.2 and 3 which dealt with prohibition of accused No.1 leaving jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the permission and to mark his personal attendance once in 15 days before the jurisdictional police. 3. Petitioner before this Court is the first informant who set the law in motion, leading to the prosecution of respondent No.1/accused No.1 and others for the above offences. He has moved the instant petition under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1/accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.2328/2010 on the following grounds: 35. That the continued absence of Respondent No.1/accused No.1 is proof of his unavailability to face trial and face the judgment of the court below. The concession of bail was granted by this Court on the assurance of the Respondent No.1’s availability to face trial. That the continued absence of Respondent No.1/accused No.1 is proof of his unavailability to face trial and face the judgment of the court below. The concession of bail was granted by this Court on the assurance of the Respondent No.1’s availability to face trial. His continued absence and the fact that he has managed to leave the country despite his passport having lapsed/cancelled, is proof of the fact that he has successfully evaded due course of justice and abused the concession of bail granted to him. 36. That the bail granted to the accused no.1 deserves to be cancelled on the additional ground that during the period of release on bail, not only he used his proxies to execute counter complaints against the Petitioner and other witnesses, but has been accused of perpetrating further crimes of similar nature involving minors. 37. That while his exemption from personal appearance is allowed by the trial Court on the purported ground of his alleged ‘austerity’ being performed in the Himalayas, it is reliably learnt by the Petitioner and confirmed by the prosecution that the Accused No.1 has run away from India to escape the trial and is presently in hiding with an expired Indian passport and is traveling using a passport from Belize. 38. The presence of Accused no.1 is necessary for continuing with the Trial since the Trial would be farce if it is conducted in his absence. Hence, bail granted to the Accused No.1 must be cancelled and his presence must be secured for the Trial to proceed. 4. Notice of the petition was ordered to respondent No.1/accused No.1 with a direction to the Investigating Officer to serve the same and to submit his report before the Court. In response, Sri.Balaraju. B, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Enquiries, CID, Bengaluru submitted his report to the effect that the notice of the petition has been served on Kumari. Achalananda on behalf of respondent No.1/accused No.1. The copy of the notice containing the endorsement purported to have been made by the aforesaid Kumari Achalananda reads as under: Sri Nithyananda Swami is not here in ashram now. He is on a spiritual tour. Sri. Nithyananda Swami has been exempted from personal appearance by the trial court. (ACHALANANDA) Ashram incharge, Nithyananda Peetha Bidadi.” 5. Kumari Achalananda, personally appeared before the Court on 03.02.2020, though she was not summoned by the Court. On her behalf, Sri. He is on a spiritual tour. Sri. Nithyananda Swami has been exempted from personal appearance by the trial court. (ACHALANANDA) Ashram incharge, Nithyananda Peetha Bidadi.” 5. Kumari Achalananda, personally appeared before the Court on 03.02.2020, though she was not summoned by the Court. On her behalf, Sri. C.V. Sudhindra, learned counsel filed vakalath along with an affidavit of aforesaid Kumari Achalananda. In the affidavit, she has stated that on 31.01.2020, certain police personnel attached to CID, Bengaluru, forced her to accept the notice, eventhough she informed the police personnel that she cannot receive and acknowledge the same on behalf of Nithyananda Swamy. Further, in the affidavit, it is stated that she is not in a position to communicate the contents of the notice to Sri. Nithyananda Swamy for the reason that she does not know the present whereabouts of Sri. Nithyananda and it is not possible for her to communicate the contents of notice to Nithyananda as desired by the police. 6. The affidavit of Kumari Achalananda and the report submitted by Sri. Balaraju. B., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Inquiries, C.I.D, Bengaluru were taken on record. 7. As the material produced before the Court indicated that there was no prospects of securing respondent No.1/accused No.1, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPPII on the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submitted that accused No.1 appeared before the trial Court for the last time on 05.06.2018. On the subsequent date i.e., on 06.09.2018, he moved an application under section 317 Cr.P.C., seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that he was observing Chaturmasa Parikrama – a spiritual practice to be observed by all sanyasis and that he was doing Chaturmasa Parikrama on the bank of Narmada river. This application was rejected by the Trial Court and NBW was issued to secure his presence. Accused No.1 challenged this order before this Court in Criminal Petition No.6920/2018 c/w. Criminal Petition No.6927/2018 and by order dated 16.01.2019, both the petitions were allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 06.09.2018 in S.C.No.86/2014 insofar as rejecting the application of accused No.1 under section 317 of Cr.P.C., and issuing NBW was setaside and the application seeking exemption was allowed. While allowing the said petitions, this Court specifically observed that the said order shall not preclude learned Sessions Judge from directing the presence of the accused on future dates. 9. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the subsequent date i.e., on 29.07.2019, once again exemption petitions were filed by accused Nos.1 and 5 and considering these applications, learned Trial Judge noted that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, on account of Chathurmasa Observation, he was unable to appear before the Court. Learned Trial Judge has recorded the submission of the learned PP that unless accused No.1 appeared before the Court or unless the personal appearance of accused No.1 was dispensed with, the trial cannot be proceeded with. In view of this submission, the exemption application filed by accused No.1 was disposed of by the Trial Court with the following order: “That for the reasons aforementioned, the accused No.1 shall appear before this Court personally and shall cooperate in the matter of commencement of trial as this Court, as per canons of law rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, cannot entertain the exemption applications filed either under section 273 or under section 317 of Cr.P.C. on all dates of hearing. For appearance of accused No.1 by 21.08.2019.” 10. On 21.08.2019, once again accused No.1 remained absent before the Court. On 9.12.2019, another exemption application was filed on behalf accused No.1 seeking exemption from personal appearance on that day on the ground that “he being the head of religious institution, is presently discharging his duties bestowed upon him by the Almighty in the propagation of Sanatana Hindu Dharma by addressing the congregation not only within this country, but also beyond the bounds of this country and as such, it was difficult for him to appear before the Court on that day”. This application clearly suggested or hinted that as on the date of filing the exemption application Accused No.1 was not available in India. Inspite of it, without verifying the veracity of the ground set out in the application, the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 09.12.2019 allowed the application with a specific direction that accused No.1 shall appear before the Court as and when he is called upon to do so in the interest of and ends of justice and equity. 11. Inspite of it, without verifying the veracity of the ground set out in the application, the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 09.12.2019 allowed the application with a specific direction that accused No.1 shall appear before the Court as and when he is called upon to do so in the interest of and ends of justice and equity. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Judge having directed accused No.1 to be present before the Court on all dates as per its order dated 29.07.2019 could not have passed the said order when the application was filed seeking exemption of the petitioner only for the day of his appearance. Learned counsel would point out that as on the date of passing the said order, accused No.1 had already left India and his passport had also expired on 30.09.2018. Even though this fact was well within the knowledge of the State as well as the Investigating Officer, Court was kept in dark and accused No.1 was facilitated to run away from the country and in the said circumstance, order passed by the Trial Court is vitiated and requires to be taken note by this court in assessing the conduct of the accused in remaining continuously absent from the Court thereby jeopardizing trial. 12. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PURAN vs. RAMBILAS & Another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , wherein following the proposition of law laid down in GURUCHARAN SINGH vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), AIR 1978 SC 179 , it is held that, when a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court under section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When however the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existing, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. When however the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existing, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court. 13. With regard to the circumstances under which bail could be cancelled, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR vs. RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PRASAD YADAV @ RAJBALLABH YADAV, (2017) 2 SCC 178 . 14. The State has not filed statement of objections opposing the petition or disputing the factual assertions made in the petition that accused No.1 was unavailable for trial and that he has been evading the course of justice. However, in the course of his submission, learned SPPII submitted that accused No.1 has been exempted from personal appearance by the Court and therefore there is no reason to cancel the bail granted to accused No.1. To the query posed by the Court as to whether presence of accused No.1 is necessary for trial, surprisingly, learned SPP submitted that the presence of accused No.1 is not immediately necessary for trial. Further he submitted that the Trial Court having exempted the accused from personal appearance, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to challenge the said order and not seek for cancellation of bail granted to accused No.1. 15. Here itself it should be noted that the submission made by learned SPP is contrary to the order passed by learned Trial Judge on 29.07.2019 wherein the Trial Court had directed accused No.1 to appear before the Court personally and to cooperate in the commencement of trial as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also this Court and further it was observed by the Trial Court that any exemption application under sections 273 or 317 of Cr.P.C. shall not be entertained on all dates of hearing. No doubt, the very same Presiding Officer by a subsequent order dated 09.12.2019 granted exemption to accused No.1, but by the said order, accused No.1 was exempted from personal appearance only for the day of his appearance i.e., on 09.12.2019 and not perpetually. No doubt, the very same Presiding Officer by a subsequent order dated 09.12.2019 granted exemption to accused No.1, but by the said order, accused No.1 was exempted from personal appearance only for the day of his appearance i.e., on 09.12.2019 and not perpetually. There was no prayer seeking permanent exemption nor has the Trial Court granted permanent exemption to accused No.1 from personal appearance. Therefore, the submission of the learned SPP that presence of accused No.1 is not necessary for trial is contrary to the orders of the Trial Court and opposed to the provisions of the Code. Least that can be said is that, the submission of the learned SPP confirms the displeasure expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 03.09.2014 that “the approach of the prosecution was lackadaisical” and that “the prosecution must gear up its efforts so that trial begins.” Learned SPPII appears to be oblivious of the fact that charge sheet was submitted before the Court in 2010. 16. Be that as it may, the uncontroverted assertions made in the petition coupled with the report of the Investigating Officer and the affidavit filed by Kumari Achalananda, Incharge of Nithyananda Dyanapeetha of which accused No.1 claims to be the spiritual head, undoubtedly establish that ever since 05.06.2018, accused No.1 did not appear before the Trial Court. The circumstances highlighted above unerringly point out that as on the date of moving the application for exemption from personal appearance, accused No.1 was not in India and was not amenable for service of notice. Even though he had claimed that he was involved in Chathurmasa Parikrama and propagation of Hindu faith in India and abroad, his whereabouts are not known even to the person who is incharge of the Dhyanapeeta of which accused No.1 claims to be its spiritual head. Under the said circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is, “Whether the High Court has inherent powers under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel bail granted to the accused No.1/respondent No.1 who has run to a foreign country to escape trial and is unavailable to face trial?” 17. It is now well that once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled unless there is evidence to show that the conditions of bail are being infringed. It is now well that once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled unless there is evidence to show that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In DOLAT RAM & Others vs. STATE OF HARYANA, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , it has been laid down that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of the bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. 18. In addition to the above grounds, in TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN vs. MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR, AIR 1958 SC 376 , at para 6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that, “6. … There can be no more important requirement of the ends of justice than the uninterrupted progress of a fair trial; and it is for the continuance of such a fair trial that the inherent powers of the High Courts are sought to be invoked by the prosecution in cases where it is alleged that accused persons, either by suborning or intimidating witnesses, are obstructing the smooth progress of a fair trial. Similarly, if an accused person who is released on bail jumps bail and attempts to run to a foreign country to escape the trial, that again would be a case where the exercise of the inherent power would be justified in order to compel the accused to submit to a fair trial and not to escape its consequences by taking advantage of the fact that he has been released on bail and by absconding to another country. In other words, if the conduct of the accused person subsequent to his release on bail puts in jeopardy the progress of a fair trial itself and if there is no other remedy which can be effectively used against the accused person, in such a case the inherent power of the High Court can be legitimately invoked.” (underlining supplied) 19. In other words, if the conduct of the accused person subsequent to his release on bail puts in jeopardy the progress of a fair trial itself and if there is no other remedy which can be effectively used against the accused person, in such a case the inherent power of the High Court can be legitimately invoked.” (underlining supplied) 19. The above proposition of law, makes it clear that bail granted to an accused could be cancelled if the accused fails to turn up for trial and remains continuously absent and evades the service of judicial process. In the instant case, by his conduct, the accused has put the entire trial in jeopardy. Even though he was exempted from personal appearance on 09.12.2019 on account of his alleged engagement in Chathurmasa Parikrama, generally, Chathurmasa is observed from July to October. If in fact the reason assigned by the respondent No.1/accused No.1 was genuine, after completion of Chathurmasa, he should have appeared before the Court; instead, he filed exemption after exemption applications stating that he is required to discharge his duties bestowed upon him by the Almighty in the propagation of Sanatana Hindu Dharma by addressing the congregations not only within this country, but also beyond the bounds of this Country. But the statements made by Kumari Achalananda in her affidavit goes to show that his whereabouts itself are not known. As such, the reasons put forward by him before the Trial Court to seek exemption from appearance are proved to be false. 20. Needless to say, purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused person will return for trial if he is released after arrest. If this purpose is defeated by the accused by keeping himself away from the court with impunity and disdain and his whereabouts are not known to the person who would naturally have heard him if he had been alive and the prosecution is handicapped to serve him notice and the prosecution is unable to reach the accused, it would be a sheer mockery of Criminal Justice system to allow the accused to be at large with the hope that he would one day return to face trial. I do not think that the Courts are so helpless and the arm of law is so weak that it has to sacrifice the interest of justice so as to secure the liberty of an undeserving undertrial. I do not think that the Courts are so helpless and the arm of law is so weak that it has to sacrifice the interest of justice so as to secure the liberty of an undeserving undertrial. No doubt, cancellation of bail should not be resorted lightly, but that does not mean that the court cannot ordinarily cancel the bail especially when the trial is in jeopardy. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PANCHANAN MISHRA vs. DIGAMBAR MISHRA & Others (2005) 3 SCC, 143, “The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime. …” 21. In the instant case, the circumstances discussed above clearly establish that the accused has successfully hoodwinked and misled the court to believe that he is engaged in propagation of Hindu religion, but the facts and circumstances discussed above clearly indicate that he is not available in India and his whereabouts are not known either to the prosecution or to the persons close to him. Under the said circumstances, there being overwhelming material to show that accused No.1 has misused the liberties granted to him and has run away to a foreign country to escape the trial, as held in TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN’s case, referred to supra, the inherent powers of the High Court are required to be invoked to compel the accused No.1 to submit to the trial. In the said circumstances, the only course open for the Court is to cancel the bail granted to accused No.1. Thus, the petitioner having made out substantial grounds for invocation of inherent powers of this Court, the petition is allowed. The bail granted to respondent No.1/accused No.1 – Sri.Nithyananda Swamy @ A.Rajashekaran, by order dated 11.06.2010 in Criminal Petition No.2328/2010 is cancelled. The bail bond executed by respondent No.1/accused No.1 is cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to take custody of respondent No.1/accused No.1 and shall take steps to enforce the security bonds in accordance with law.