- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4474 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI SIDDRAMAIAH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 2ND BLOCK 4TH CROSS, BEHIND PRATHIKSHA HOSTEL KUVEMPU NAGARA, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU - 572 101, KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V. NAGESH, SR. ADV., FOR SRI RAGAVENDRA K, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORATAGERE POLICE KORATAGERE - 572/01 TUMKUR - 5, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO HIS ENLARGEMENT OF BAIL IN RELATION TO THE CASE IN SC.NO.5080/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.166/2025 REGISTERED BY KORTAGERE P.S., TUMKUR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 61(2),103(1),115(2),140,238,345(3),3(5),3(6) OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.07.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER 1. Accused no.1 in Crime No.166/2025 registered by Koratagere Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 115(2), 140, 238, 345(3) read with 3(5), 3(6) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.166/2025 was registered by Koratagere Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 of BNS, 2023, against unknown persons based on the first information dated 07.08.2025 received from Jagadeesh.B., S/o late Bheemaiah, who had found pieces of human body near Jonigarahalli lake at Bendonne village, within the jurisdiction of Koratagere Police Station, Tumakuru District. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 11.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 has been filed against three persons and petitioner is arrayed as accused no.1 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.5011/2026 was rejected on 03.03.2026. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, petitioner is a qualified dental doctor and is in custody for the last nearly one year. Investigation of the case is already completed. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances which connects the petitioner to the crime. Considering the material on record, a serious doubt arises with regard to the date and time of the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the last seen theory looses relevance. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BERNARD LYNGDOH PHAWA - THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA - 2026(2) SUPREME 451. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has strenuously opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner submits that, petitioner had a strong motive to commit the murder of deceased Lakshmidevi, who is the mother of CW-2 - Thejashree with whom the petitioner had living-in relationship for the last six years. The first wife of the petitioner had deserted him and she had filed two criminal cases against him including a case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He submits that the petition filed for divorce by the petitioner has been dismissed, and on the other hand, the petition filed by the first wife for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed by the jurisdictional Family Court. He submits that CW-7 & CW-8 are the material witnesses who speak about the last seen theory. He also submits that the jewellery of the deceased has been recovered from the clinic of the petitioner and even the weapon used to commit the crime and the forged number plate of the car in which the dead body was carried, etc., have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The said circumstances connect the petitioner to the crime committed, and therefore, if the petitioner who is a qualified doctor is - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The material on record would go to show that petitioner is a dental doctor by profession. CW-52 - Manasa is the wife of the petitioner. It appears that the relationship between CW-52 and the petitioner was not cordial, therefore, she had left his company and had taken shelter in her parents house. Subsequently, petitioner had filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.117/2014 which was dismissed and the petition filed by CW-52 seeking restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.138/2014 was allowed. 7. The material on record would also go to show that there were criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his relatives based on the first information submitted by his wife - CW-52. After CW-52 had left the company of the petitioner, it appears that he had developed relationship with CW-2 - Theja Shree and they were living together in his house. Since the petitioner was not allowing CW-2 to meet her parents, her mother who is the deceased in the present case used to come - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 to the house of the petitioner and was regularly quarreled with him. It appears that deceased did not have a good reputation in the village, and therefore, petitioner did not like she visiting his house. Petitioner, who suspected CW-2 appears to have installed CCTV camera inside the house including his bedroom and this was objected by deceased Lakshmidevi who is the mother of CW-2 and she had abused the petitioner for the same. 8. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had thereafter developed ill-will against Lakshmidevi and had decided to eliminate her. He, therefore, had conspired with accused no.2 and in furtherance of such conspiracy, on 03.08.2025 he had taken Lakshmidevi in a car with duplicate number plate and as per the conspiracy between the accused persons, accused no.2 had sat in the boot space of the said car even prior to the petitioner picking up Lakshmidevi in the said car. After traveling to a distance, accused no.2 who was in the boot space of the car allegedly bent the right side seat of the car and came to the rear seat of the car. Thereafter, accused nos.1 & 2 caught hold of Lakshmidevi and committed her - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 murder by strangulating her neck. Subsequently, the dead body of Lakshmidevi was taken to the property bearing Sy. No.79/8 belonging to accused no.2. Subsequently, accused no.2 had summoned accused no.3 to the said property and with his assistance, on 04.08.2025, the dead body of deceased was cut into pieces and was packed in plastic bags. On 06.08.2025, the plastic bags which contained pieces of the dead body were transported in the Brezza car with duplicate number plate and the plastic bags containing pieces of dead body were thrown in different places with an intention of destroying the evidence. After the pieces of dead body were found by the first informant, he had approached the police and FIR was registered in the present case. 9. During the course of investigation, the police have recovered the jewellery of the deceased from the clinic of the petitioner. The duplicate number plates which were used while committing the crime were also recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The movement of Brezza car bearing duplicate number plate has been captured in the CCTV footages. Petitioner who had a marital dispute with his wife was - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 in living in relationship with CW-2 and since the deceased who is the mother of CW-2 was interfering, he had ill-will against her, and therefore, it cannot be said that he had no motive to commit the murder. 10. In furtherance of his conspiracy with accused no.2, on 03.08.2025, petitioner had picked up deceased Lakshmidevi on the pretext of dropping her to the bus stand in his Brezza car bearing No.KA-05-MT-2367, which had a duplicate number plate. Accused no.2 who was hiding in the boot space of the car, thereafter managed to come to the rear side of the car and with the help of dupata which he had in his hand, accused nos.1 & 2 strangulated the deceased and committed her murder. Subsequently, the accused persons drove the car to the farm house in the agricultural property of accused no.2 and with the help of the weapons which petitioner had brought with him had cut the dead body of Smt. Lakshmidevi into pieces with the help of accused no.3. 11. CW-8 - Yashavantha, who is the son of CW-7 - Lakshmamma working as Office Assistant in the clinic of the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 petitioner, has stated about petitioner picking up deceased Smt. Lakshmidevi in his Brezza car on 03.08.2025. This witness has also stated that he had handed over the parcel which his mother had asked him to deliver to the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the weapons used to cut the dead body of the deceased was in the said parcel which accused persons had purchased earlier from CW-25 and had kept in the clinic of the petitioner. The material on record shows that during the course of investigation, there is recovery of pieces of dead body at the instance of the accused persons. Investigation Officer has also collected material which would go to show that the Brezza car which was used to commit the offence was purchased by the petitioner from one Prakash. Separate mahazars have been held at the spots where there was recovery of pieces of dead body, duplicate number plate, plastic garbage cover and plastic tarpaulin, etc. In addition to the same, mahazar was also held at the place where the accused persons had purchased weapons used to commit the crime. 12. At the stage of considering a bail application, the courts are not required to hold a mini-trial, and on the other hand, the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 courts must be mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence and the implication on the society if the accused is granted bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MASROOR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2009)14 SCC 286, in paragraph 15, has observed as under: "15. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. In this context, the following observations of this Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [(1987) 2 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 415] are quite apposite: (SCC p. 691, para 6) “6. … Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution.” 13. That apart, the courts need not scrutinize the evidence threadbare so as to find out whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The courts are only required to consider whether prima facie material is available in the charge sheet as against the accused for the alleged offences. Though the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the material collected by the Investigation Officer makes out a chain which prima facie connects the accused persons to the crime. Circumstances speak for themselves and when a chain of circumstances which connects to each other is found in the charge sheet, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail merely for the reason that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 14. The judgment in Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa's case supra, is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an appeal against conviction having regard to the facts of the said case and at - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010206152026 NC: 2026:KHC:38710 CRL.P No. 4474 of 2026 this stage, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to this case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail at this stage cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 151