- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13477 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KIRAN KUMAR S/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DODDIBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST. PIN: 577 548. 2. SMT. SHRUTHI S.S. W/O LATE JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O DODDIBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST. PIN: 577 548. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY SAKHRAYAPATTANA POLICE CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.108/2024 REGISTERED BY THE SAKHARAYAPATTANA POLICE DATED 22.06.2024 (CRIME NO.91/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKMAGALUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 120B AND 201 R/W 34 OF I.P.C. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 24.01.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 30.01.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for the State. 2. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.91/2024 of Sakkaraya Patna Police Station, Chikkamagalur, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 3. Both the accused are arrested on 22.06.2024 and they are in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. 4. Petition seeking bail preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.108/2024 vide order dated 22.11.2024. Hence, this petition praying to enlarge them on bail. 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, accused No.2 Smt.Shruthi S.S., is the wife of deceased Jayanna. She had an illicit relationship with accused No.1 – Kiran Kumar. On coming to know about their illicit relationship, deceased admonished and separated them. Since, deceased was an obstacle to their illicit relationship, both the accused hatched a plan to commit his murder by administering poison and to project that he died due to stomach pain. 6. On 15.06.2024 at about 9.00 p.m., accused No.1 brought insecticide and gave it to accused No.2, who mixed it in the fish curry prepared by her and gave it to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 the deceased. In the midnight at about 1.30 a.m., deceased started complaining of stomach pain. Accused No.2 secured accused No.1 to the house. Both of them along with their elder daughter – CW.8 took the deceased to the hospital in the Car of accused No.1 bearing Registration No.KA-53/M 8467. On the way, when the deceased wanted to attend the call of nature, they stopped the car near the land of one Revanna. While the deceased was returning after attending the nature’s call, accused No.1 strangulated him with a towel and held his neck tightly, while accused No.2 held his legs. 7. Initially, a UDR No.16/2024 was registered. During investigation, the mobile CDR indicated frequent communication between accused Nos.1 and 2, who are close relatives. Both the accused were arrested and they confessed to the Crime. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently contended that, deceased Jayanna died of natural cause on 16.06.2024 as he was suffering from abdominal pain. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 Initially, a UDR was registered to that effect and on 22.06.2024, police have registered a suo moto case by falsely implicating the petitioners concocting a fictitious story. He contended that if the petitioners have committed the offence, they would not have carried the victim to the hospital. CW.8 being an eye witness, has not alleged in her statement recorded by the learned Magistrate that the petitioners have committed the murder, on the other hand, she has stated that her father was suffering from stomach pain and therefore, her mother called accused No.1 and both of them shifted her father to the hospital and on the way her father died. He contended that there are no incriminating materials against the petitioners and the material on record suggests that they are innocent of the alleged offence and therefore, they are entitled for bail. 9. Learned counsel further contended that both the petitioners have minor children and petitioner No.1 is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 suffering from serious health issues and therefore, by imposing any conditions they may be enlarge on bail. 10. The learned Additional SPP has filed statement of objections. She has contended that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were in an illicit relationship, which came to the knowledge of the deceased and since he was an obstacle, both the accused hatched a plan to eliminate him and in furtherance of the same, accused No.1 supplied insecticide to accused No.2 who mixed it in the fish curry and gave it to the deceased. In the guise of taking him to the hospital, on the way, both of them committed his murder. 11. The learned Additional SPP has further contended that as per inquest report there was a strangulation mark on the neck of the deceased and other several injuries. FSL report also indicated the presence of chlorpyrifos (Organophosphorus). In the post mortem report 26 injuries are noticed on the dead body and the cause of death clearly indicate that this is a case of murder. She contended that the murder is premeditated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for bail and if bail is granted, there is likelihood of tampering the prosecution witnesses, wherein CW.8 is none other than the daughter of accused No.2. She has therefore sought to dismiss the petition. 12. Registration of UDR stating that the deceased died due to severe abdominal pain etc., itself is not a ground at this stage to hold that the accused are innocent, as the UDR was registered on the basis of information furnished by accused No.2. The fact at this stage remains that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who carried the victim in the car belonging to accused No.1. The victim died on the way. The statement of CW.8 recorded by the Magistrate would indicate that her mother i.e., accused No.1 informed her that her father has died. According to the prosecution when the deceased after attending the call of nature while returning, accused No.1 strangulated him with a towel and accused No.2 held his legs tightly. As per Post Mortem Report about 26 injuries are noticed on the dead body. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 The learned counsel for petitioners has tried to contend that the said injuries are caused while shifting the deceased. It is his contention that the deceased died due to complication of hernia. However, as per final opinion furnished by the Doctor ‘death is due to asphyxia as a result of combined effect of smothering and application of pressure over the neck (strangulation) which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Further, poisonous substance containing chlorpyrifos (Organophosphorus) insecticide compound was detected in the body of the deceased. During the Mahazar, the insecticide used to poison the deceased, contained in a plastic cover and a bottle labelled “SUPERBAN20 Chlorphyrifos 20% EC”, was seized and sent to the FSL. The FSL report confirmed the presence of chlorpyrifos (organophosphorus), which matched the same compound detected in the deceased body as per the final opinion of the doctor. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4210 CRL.P No. 13477 of 2024 13. From the above material on record, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Crime was premeditated. Tampering the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out, if the accused are enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the petition and shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Ct:ra