- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10131 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NITHISHA H.S. @ NITHISH S/O. SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT HIRIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 571 134 (ACCUSED NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIRAG .G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SATHISHA S/O. LATE. KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT HIRIKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 S.C.NO.5016/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.28/24) OF HUNSUR RURAL P.S. FOR AN ILLEGAL OFFENCE P/U/S. 302, 304 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR. THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 30.10.2024 IN S.C.NO.5016/2024. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER This petition is preferred by the sole accused in Crime No.28/2024 of Hunsur Rural Police Station, pending in SC.No.5016/2024 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, to enlarge him on bail. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the material on record. 3. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioner has committed the murder of his mother-Anitha and sister- Dhanushree by pushing them into Maruru Kere, near Basaveshwara temple, Maruru village, Husnur taluk, Mysuru - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 District, on the night of 23.01.2024. The motive alleged is that, the petitioner's sister-Dhanushree was in love with CW.19, which relationship was opposed by the petitioner. In-spite of that, she was talking to CW.19. On 16.01.2024, Dhanushree had been to Anjaneyaswamy temple in Doddahejjur village and at about 9.30 p.m., accused saw her talking to CW.19. He warned CW.19, assaulted Dhanushree and brought her back to the house. Since she was in love with a person of different community, accused decided to commit her murder. On 23.01.2024 at about 8.00 p.m, he took his mother and sister on his motorcycle to Hirekyathanahalli saying that his mother's uncle (CW.15) was not well. At about 8.45 p.m. all the three while proceeding on the motorcycle, near Maruru Kere in Maruru village, accused stopped the bike, and asked Dhanushree to get down from the motorbike. He told her to break the relationship with CW.19. When she refused, he dragged her in front of Basaveshwara temple and kicked her into Maruru Kere, as a result, she drowned in the water. When his mother-Anitha tried to rescue her, she too fell into the water, drowned and both of them died. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The incident has not occurred as alleged by the prosecution, but both the deceased accidentally fell into the water and died. Drawing the attention of the Court to the statement of CW.1- Sathish recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the learned counsel contended that, as per the said statement, while the petitioner was proceeding on the scooter, both the deceased fell into the water. He contended that if the petitioner had any intention to do away the life of his sister-Dhanushree, he would not have taken his mother along with them and at no point of time, petitioner has assaulted Dhanushree. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than one and half years, therefore, by imposing any conditions he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has contended that the petitioner had a grouse against his sister-Dhanushree, as she was in love with a boy from a different community. He had warned her not to continue the relationship with CW.19, but - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 she had refused. Therefore, by falsely stating that their maternal uncle is unwell, he took both his sister and his mother on the motorcycle and when they reached Maruru Kere, he pushed Dhanushree into the water and when his mother tried to rescue her, she too fell into the water, but the petitioner allowed both of them to drown in the water. He contended that the petitioner has committed double murder and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence committed by him, he is not entitled for the relief of bail. He further submitted that the complainant namely, the father of the petitioner has also committed suicide. He contended that CWs.17 and 18 are the material witnesses, who have seen the accused at the spot and their evidence is yet to be recorded. Hence, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is a possibility of tampering the said witnesses. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. According to the prosecution, CWs.17 and 18 are the material witnesses, who have seen the petitioner at the spot during the relevant point of time. Even though his sister and mother died, it appears that the petitioner has not accompanied - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31174 CRL.P No. 10131 of 2025 his father to Hunsur Rural police station to lodge a complaint. The statements of CWs.17 to 19 are recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.PC. The statements indicate that the petitioner has made an Extra-Judicial Confession stating that he has pushed both his mother and sister into the water. The evidence of the said witnesses are yet to be recorded. 7. In this case, trial is in progress. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed, incarceration undergone by the petitioner is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is likelihood of tampering the prosecution witnesses and also fleeing from justice. Keeping in view the nature of accusation, material on record, severity of punishment and the chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses and accused fleeing from justice, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22