- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.17252 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RASHMITHA SAHOO @ MAMA SAHOO, W/O HEMANTH KUMAR SAHOO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NEAR NISARGA COMFORT, 3RD CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PERMANENT ADDRESS: BORALAPOKARI VILLAGE, CHARAMPA POST, BHADRAK TANA DISTRICT, OODISSA STATE-756 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.661/2025 K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, PENDING IN 29TH ADDL. CMM COURT, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Kiran Kumar H.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. The accused No.3 in S.C.No.100/26 is the petitioner with the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner/accused No.3 prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CR.No.661/2025 of K.R.Puram Police Station, pending in 29th Addl. CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore city, for alleged offences punishable under Section 103 of BNS pending on the file in the Court of in the above case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present petition is that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 K.R. Puram police filed a charge-sheet in respect of Crime No.661/2025 dated 28.08.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short). Column No.17 of the charge-sheet material would reveal that the present petitioner is married to accused No.1 and suppressing the same, accused No.1 was residing with the deceased for some time in Bengaluru in the place of incident. 4. When the present petitioner came to know about the illicit relationship of accused No.1 with the deceased, there was a telephone call made by the present petitioner to the deceased stating that she is married to accused No.1 Hemanth Kumar Sahoo and she also has a son from the marital tie with accused No.1. 5. In this regard, there were quarrels between the deceased and accused No.1 and there was a ill-will between accused No.1 and the present petitioner. In order to put an end to the illicit relationship accused No.1 had with the deceased, accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched a plan to take away the life of the deceased, who was residing in a house at Avalahalli of K.R.Puram within the limits of K.R.Puram Police Station. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 6. As per the pre-plan, on 28.05.2025, accused No.1 left the company of the deceased and returned to Adoor in Orissa State where accused No.3 was living. Thereafter, they decided to take away the life of the deceased and as such, on 21.08.2025, at about 10.00 p.m., a plan was hatched and on 22.08.2025, at about 11.00 p.m., all the three accused persons came on a two wheeler bearing No.KA-03-KY-8708 upto Hoskote Toll and thereafter, they booked a Rapido car and covering their faces with the helmet, they came near the house of the deceased. 7. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were directed to climb the terrace of the house of the deceased to keep a watch about the movements of general public, if any, and accused No.1 entered inside the house of the deceased and he strangulated the deceased. Thereafter, he said to have sent a message to accused No.2 over his mobile telephone and after seeing the said message, accused Nos.2 and 3 came inside the house of the deceased and at that juncture, accused No.1 sat on the body of the deceased and held her hands tightly and accused No.2 with the help of a pillow smothered the deceased and at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 that juncture, accused No.3 (present petitioner) was holding the legs of the deceased tightly so as to prevent the deceased from escaping the act of smothering. 8. Thus, all the three accused persons were successful in killing the deceased by smothering and thereafter, to make it appear that she has committed suicide, hung the dead body to a ceiling fan and all the three came out and accused No.1 took the key of the house and locked it from outside and opening the window threw the key on the bed and thereafter, all the three persons covering their faces with the helmet ran away from the place in a Rapido autorickshaw. 9. The incident was first reported by Smt.Aparna to the police. Based on such information, the police registered a case as UDR. Later on investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS. 10. While filing the charge-sheet, the investigating agency has not only collected the CCTV footage in the Hoskote Toll, but also examined the concerned witnesses to establish - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 the chain of events and also collected the mobile telephone call records of the deceased, accused Nos.1 to 3 and placed the same before the Court. After apprehending the accused persons, voluntary statements of the accused persons were also recorded as is contemplated under Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’ for short). Pursuant to the said voluntary statements of the accused persons, recovery of the mobile telephone of the deceased has taken place. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from accused No.1 for possessing the mobile telephone of the deceased with him. 11. The request made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.25914/2025. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner being accused No.3 is before this Court. 13. Sri Kiran Kumar H.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to accused No.2 and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 14. He would further contend that even according to the charge-sheet materials, except for the allegation that the present petitioner held the legs of the deceased tightly so as to prevent the deceased from escaping the act of smothering, no other allegations are found against the present petitioner and therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 15. He would also contend that since the charge-sheet is filed and the petitioner being a lady, is entitled for grant of bail. He also emphasizes that she is a mother of a young child and therefore on that score the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. 16. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the bail grounds by contending that the role of the petitioner is not comparable to the role assigned to accused No.2 in the incident, inasmuch as motive for the homicidal death of the deceased is the present petitioner, who insisted accused No.1 to put an end to the life of the deceased so as to continue with the marital tie of accused No.1 with her. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 17. The material on record prima facie would indicate that a plan was hatched by accused Nos.1 to 3 to take away the life of the deceased on 21.08.2025 and pursuant to the same, on 22.08.2025 all the accused persons came on a two wheeler and near Hosakote Toll they hired a Rapido car and then reached the place of incident covering their faces with the helmet, which would make it clear that the entire incident was pre-planned and it was executed properly by the aid of the present petitioner and other accused persons and therefore sought for rejection of the bail. 18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the incident was first reported to the jurisdictional police by Smt. Aparna, who is one of the witnesses to the charge-sheet. 19. Later on, the police registered the incident as an unnatural death report. However, on further investigation the police found out the role of accused No.1 and he was apprehended. Based on his voluntary statement, mobile phone belonging to the deceased has been recovered and subsequent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 thereto, further investigation revealed the role of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the incident. 20. The present petitioner being the wife of accused No.1, in fact called the deceased much earlier to the incident over telephone and has warned the deceased to snap the relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased, as she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and she is having a child born in the wedlock between her and accused No.1. These aspects of the matter is borne out by collecting necessary material by the investigating agency. 21. It is well settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the bail application, the Court shall not require to hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case, as the same may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial one way or the other. 22. Thus, desisting from holding the mini trial when the material on record is appreciated in the light of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the prima facie materials would indicate that the interest of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 petitioner is the motive for the incident as the entire case stands on the circumstantial evidence even though the police have cited Smt. Aparna and others are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 23. Further, the call records which has been collected by the police and the CCTV footage and other necessary materials would be prima facie sufficient enough to infer the role played by the present petitioner in the incident which has to be established by the prosecution during the trial. 24. Further, in a matter of this nature where heinous offence under Section 103 of BNS is alleged and there are specific materials collected by the investigating agency, only on the ground that the petitioner is a lady and is having a small child itself would not be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, atleast till the examination of the material witnesses. 25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that at least at this stage, the present petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19752 CRL.P No. 17252 of 2025 26. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is rejected. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6