- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9649 OF 2024 (439(2)(Cr.PC) / 483(3)(BNSS) ) BETWEEN: KUMARASWAMY P S/O LATE PARASHIVMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.138, M G KOPPALA MAIN ROAD, NEAR SURYA BAKERI, HEBBAL, MELAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SOMASHEKAR T N S/O NAGARAJU T S, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 4526, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 13TH CROSS, V. V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA - 571 401. 3. NEELAMBIKE W/O T S NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 4526, 13TH CROSS, V. V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA - 571 401. 4. HEMALATHA T N W/O SHIVAPRASADA S K, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA, BEHIND MDCC BANK, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA DIST - 571 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARIPRASAD. M. B. ADV. FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439(2) OF CR.P.C (U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDERS BEING PASSED IN SC.NO.56/2024 DTD 06.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN ENLARGING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4/ ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 ON BAIL ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioner being the defacto complainant in Crime No.161/2023 registered at Mandya West Police Station has preferred this petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to accused Nos.1 to 3. 2. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased by name Shruthi. S. The allegations are that accused No.1 was insisting the deceased to transfer the entire property worth Crores of rupees in his name so that he could purchase a shop complex by selling the said property. It is alleged that in this connection, he was picking up quarrel with the deceased, harassing and assaulting her etc. On the night intervening 10.11.2023 and 11.11.2023, the said accused is alleged to have smothered the deceased using a pillow and also by closing her mouth and nose, committed her murder. 3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have caused destruction of the evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident has taken place in the matrimonial home, where only accused Nos.1 to 3 were present. As per post mortem report, cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering coupled with compression of neck and therefore, there is a prima-facie case against the accused. He contended that in view of the serious nature of the offence committed by them, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in enlarging the accused on bail that too without assigning proper reasons. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has contended that accused No.3 was granted bail by this Court and Accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted bail by the Sessions Court by a detailed order and those orders are not challenged by the petitioner. On the other hand, after committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has released the accused on bail and the said order is challenged. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 6. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that initially, anticipatory bail petition preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3 were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by separate orders passed on 28.12.2023. The said accused filed one more petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.03.2024. Subsequently, accused Nos.2 and 3 approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.2665/2024. In so far as accused No.2 was concerned, petition was withdrawn and in so far as accused No.3 is concerned, her petition for anticipatory bail was allowed. 7. Subsequent to disposal of the above petition preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3, accused No.2 came to be arrested and she preferred a petition seeking regular bail before the Sessions Court, which was allowed by an order dated 25.04.2024. Thereafter, accused No.1 who was also arrested in this case came to be enlarged on bail - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.05.2024. 8. It is no doubt, the offence allegedly committed is heinous in nature. The prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the incident. In the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting regular bail to accused Nos.1 and 2, the entire facts and circumstances are considered and after giving reasons, they were enlarged on bail. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for accused, those orders have not been challenged by the petitioner. Subsequent to committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration that accused Nos.1 to 3 are already on bail has formally passed an order vide order dated 06.06.2024 allowing their application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., directing them to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum and imposing other conditions. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6019 CRL.P No. 9649 of 2024 9. This Court finds that while enlarging the accused on bail, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire material on record and in fact accused No.3 was granted bail by this Court. The orders granting bail to accuse Nos.1 to 3 were not challenged by the petitioner. It is not his case that subsequent to their release, accused have not co-operated the investigation or they have violated any of the conditions imposed. Case is already committed to the Sessions Court. There are no compelling reasons to cancel the bail already granted to the accused. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 10. It is open for the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail granted to the accused, if any of the conditions imposed while granting bail is violated. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC