SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) v. SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR PROP

(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAWALI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KAKATI P.S BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-560001.

2. SANJANA D/O. SANTOSH PADMANNAVAR, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O, PLOT NO.1772, SECTOR 10, ANJANEYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA HCGP FOR R1; SRI V. M. SHEELAVANTH, ADV. FOR R2; SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR PROP. APPLICANT) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 BNSS), PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED

13.10.2025 AND 14.10.2025 IN S.C.NO.22/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.103, 61, 238, 3(5) OF BNS 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BNELAGAVI MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 (Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232) by the petitioners/accused calling in question the orders dated 13.10.2025 and 14.10.2025 passed in S.C.No.22/2025 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi3, marked at Annexure-A to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the impugned orders dated 13/10/2025 and 14/10/2025 in S.C. 22/2025 for the offences punishable u/s 103, 61, 238, 3(5) of BNS 2023 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi marked at Annexure-A. ii. Grant any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.p.c.’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’ - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR

3. The Sessions Court, vide orders dated 13.10.2025 and

14.10.2025, has passed the following orders, which reads as under: “13.10.2025 SC 22/2025 Accused No.1 to 5 are produced from JC through VC. Cw-24 and 25 are examined as Pw-1 and 2. Ex.P-1 and 2 are got marked. M.0.1 and 2 are identified. Wherein the L/e for the accused seeks time for cross examining the above said witnesses on the ground that, the senior counsel on record for the accused is suffering from throat infection. But, on perusal of the order sheet the counsel for the accused is went on taking adjournment on the similar grounds. Moreover no document being produce to show the illness of the counsel. If the approach of the counsel is considered it appears he adopted the statics to delay the proceedings. However with intend to give an opportunity granted time for cross examining the Pw-1 and 2. Cw-1 is absent. JC extended to the accused No.1 to 5. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR Directed the concerned police to produce the accused No.1 to 5 through VC from JC on next date of hearing. Call on 14.10.2025.

14.10.2025 Accused No.1 to 5 are produced from JC through VC. Cw-27 is present. The counsel for the accused is absent. As in the absence of counsel for the accused trial cannot be proceeded. Further if the conduct of the accused is considered, they are not properly assisting the Court for conducting the trial. Thus this Court felt the L/c for the accused appears to be adopted to the tactics to delay the proceedings and trial, thus this Court felt it is proper to provide legal aid to the accused through the DLSA and to proceed further. Considering the same, directed the office to write a letter to DLSA to depute one of the defense counsel on behalf of the accused to proceed with trial. After receipt of letter from this Court DLSA appointed one LMH the Chief Defense counsel as counsel to the accused No.1 to 5 who files is memo of appearance. Cw-27 is examined as Pw-3 in part. Ex.P-3 to 6 are got marked. As the for want of time, the further chief of PW-3 is deferred and witnesses | bound over. L/chief defense counsel submits that, the direction may be issued to the police to supply the copy of charge - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR sheet. Wherein the charge sheet copy for the accused has already been furnished. Considering the same, directed the defense counsel to get the certified copy of the charge sheet copy. JC extended to the accused No.1 to 5. Directed the concerned police to produce the accused No.1 to 5 through VC from JC on next date of hearing. Call on 15.10.2025.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Kiran S. Jawali submitted that the remarks made against the advocate for the accused hampers his profession. Therefore, prays to expunge the remarks made against the advocate for the accused in the Sessions Court.

5. The remarks made against the advocate for the accused in the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 are to the effect that the counsel for the accused was repeatedly seeking adjournments on similar grounds, namely that the senior counsel on record for the accused was suffering from a throat infection. The Sessions Court observed that the advocate for the accused had not produced any document to show that he was suffering from any illness and had adopted tactics to delay the proceedings. Similar observations were made in the impugned - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR order dated 14.10.2025. The Sessions Court further opined therein that, since the advocate for the accused was adhering to such tactics, an advocate from the District Legal Services Authority was appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme. The said impugned orders are challenged in the present petition.

6. When an advocate makes a submission before the Sessions Court that he is suffering from illness, it is to be presumed that the advocate is stating the truth before the Court and is genuinely unable to conduct the case on account of ill health. Asking documents to the advocate for proof of such illness is excessive on the part of the Court. Therefore, the remarks made by the Sessions Court to the effect that the advocate for the accused adopted tactics to delay the proceedings is unjustified and liable to be expunged. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

7. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that now the accused are entitled to continue the same advocate to defend them. Therefore, the accused do not wish to avail the services of an advocate appointed by the District Legal Services Authority. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR

8. When this being so, the Sessions Court ought to have permitted the counsel appearing before it to continue conducting the defence and to defend the accused. On this point also, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has issued guidelines, which are mandatory in nature and binding on all the Courts conducting trials, directing that trials shall be conducted on a day to day basis.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman @ Mir Usman Ali4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of earlier decisions, has issued mandatory directions to conduct trials on a day to day basis, strictly in accordance with the provisions under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023). Therefore, the advocate for the accused shall cooperate with the Sessions Court for conducting trial on a day to day basis, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble 4 Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 969/2025 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed; b) The orders dated 13.10.2025 and 14.10.2025 passed in S.C.No.22/2025 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, marked at Annexure-A to the writ petition, is set aside; c) The Sessions Court is directed to conduct trial on a day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) and also, as per the mandatory guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), the advocate for the - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:738 WP No. 108927 of 2025 HC-KAR accused shall cooperate with the Sessions Court for conducting trial on a day to day basis; d) The Sessions Court shall fix dates for trial with consent and convenience of the advocate for the accused; e) The advocate for accused shall co-operate for conducting day-to-day trial in the Sessions Case No.22/2025 as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra. f) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37