- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103841 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALA @ MALAWWA @ MALASHREE W/O MAHANTESH SUTAGANNAWAR AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HALLAKERI PRESENTLY, R/O. HATTIALUR TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELGAVI 591309. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR YAMKANMARDI POLICE STATION DIST. BELGAVI, R/BY S.P.P KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ORDERED TO BE ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL, IN YAMKANMARDI P.S. CR.NO.07/2025 OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120(B), 302, 201, R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE VII TH ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. M. J. Peerjade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is accused No.1 in SC No.5051/2025 with the following prayer: “It is most respectfully prayed that the petitioner/accused No.1 may kindly be ordered to be enlarged on regular bail, in Yamkanmardi p.s.cr.no.07/2025 of the offences punishable U/Sec.120(B), 302, 201 r/w sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present case are as under: 3.1. The brother of the deceased has lodged a complaint with Yamakanmardi Police on 10.01.2025, contending that there is an unnatural death of his brother. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 3.2. Next day, the police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 as against the petitioner and another accused. 3.3. Complaint averments would reveal that the deceased being the husband of the present petitioner was addicted to liquor and used to harass the petitioner every day. In order to put an end to this untold hardship, accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2 and offered sum of Rs.70,000/- as the consideration to take away the life of the deceased. A plan was hatched by accused Nos.1 and 2. They decided that the deceased is anyway addicted to liquor and he should be taken to an unknown place and made to consume huge quantity of liquor. When he is under the influence of liquor, he could be done to death by strangulation. 4. The deal was accepted by accused No.2 and he received a sum Rs.30,000/- by ‘phone pay’ from accused 1 For short, ‘IPC’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 No.1. Thereafter, on 13.04.2024, accused No.2 took the deceased in his car and made him to consume the liquor. When the deceased was under the influence of liquor, he took the deceased on a small hillock at Kundargi Village and strangulated him with the help of a rope. Thereafter, he made the dead body to lie on the hind seat of the ‘Alto’ car driven by him. Accused No.2 had taken one student by name Vishal Tammanna Waddar along with him and he was staying in the car. The said Vishal enquired as to what happened to the deceased and accused No.2 said to have told him that he is under the influence of liquor and has lost consciousness. Thereafter, the dead body was brought to the house of accused No.1. 5. Next day morning the present petitioner made a show that her husband died on account of over consumption of the liquor and liver failure and started crying. Neighbours assembled and intimation was also delivered to the relatives. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to the Lingayath Burial ground and the dead body was buried. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 incident has occurred on 13.04.2024 and there was a total lull upto 10.01.2025. 6. On 10.01.2025, complainant approached the police and expressed doubt about the death of his brother. The police registered a case of an unnatural death report and later on enquired the suspects and came to know that it is a case of murder and plan was hatched by the present petitioner in active collusion with accused No.2. Thereafter, the police registered a regular crime and investigated the matter. 7. During the course of investigation, the body of the deceased was exhumed pursuant to the orders of the Court, and remains of husband of the petitioner were recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. 8. Further, during the course of investigation, Vishal Tammanna Waddar, who accompanied the accused No.2, was examined by the Investigation Agency. The statement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 was also recorded on 17.02.2025 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, wherein, the said Vishal has specifically told that he had accompanied accused No.2 to Kundargi village and he was staying in the car and it is the accused No.2 who took the deceased along with him and brought back his body and made the body to lie in the hind seat of the car and thereafter, the car was driven to the house of accused No.1. 9. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner and accused No.2 for the aforesaid offences. 10. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by the learned Trial Judge and thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently contend that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial 2 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 evidence and there is no connecting material which would attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC at least insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the gravity of the offence has been reduced to the considerable extent. 9.1. He would further contend that insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 201 of IPC are concerned, there is no material evidence on record. Therefore, continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted. 9.2. He would also contend that the petitioner being the lady and wife of the deceased, would be entitled for the benefit under Section 437(2) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, prayed to allow the petition. 12. Per contra, Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State would contend that the offence is very grave in nature and motive for the incident is the alleged torture by the deceased to the present petitioner. Therefore, first element in the circumstantial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 evidence namely motive is established by the prosecution with sufficient material on record in the form of charge sheet. 13. Insofar as last seen theory is concerned, it is Vishal Tammanna Waddar who has seen the deceased in the company of accused No.2 when the deceased was alive and later on he has seen the body of the deceased carried on by accused No.2 and let the body to lie in the hind seat of the Alto car driven by accused No.2. Therefore, last seen theory witness who has been examined before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is to be examined in the trial and at least till such time, the bail request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 14. Insofar as recovery is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader wound contend that exhumation of the dead body would reveal that, in order to screen the evidence of the crime, the body was buried without informing the police. Therefore, at least at this stage, the prosecution is able to oppose the bail request of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 petitioner on all counts and, accordingly, seeks rejection of the bail. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is no doubt true that the incident has occurred on 13.04.2024 and the complaint came to be filed on 11.01.2025 and a day earlier to it, the case was registered as UDR. The complainant is none other than the younger brother of the deceased. 17. It is pertinent to note that though the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. But prosecution is able to establish prima facie material to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. 18. The motive according to the prosecution is the harassment meted out by the deceased to the present petitioner while under the influence of liquor. Further, the statement of Vishal Tammanna Waddar recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 stated to be prima facie sufficient enough to establish the last seen theory. 19. Further, when the dead body was brought to the house of the petitioner by accused No.2, the petitioner being a prudent wife, ought to have immediately intimated the incident to the police. But she made it appear that the deceased died a natural death under the influence of liquor and made a show of cry, and hurriedly buried the body at the Lingayath Burial ground, so that the evidence of the crime got vanished or destructed. 20. These materials on record would prima facie sufficient enough to form a nexus between the crime and the present petitioner. 21. It is settled principle of law, requires no emphasis that in order to establish an offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IPC, hardly any direct evidence would be available. 22. Moreover, at the stage of considering the bail request, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 to evaluate the probative value of the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Such statements can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness during the trial. 23. As the matter has not reached that stage, any detailed or splitting analysis of the statements of the witnesses at this juncture is totally unwarranted. 24. Offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC having been invoked by the prosecution, question of slicing down the offences to each of the accused would not per se available. 25. Further, as could be seen from the material on record, it appears that the present petitioner contacted accused No.2 to take away the life of her own husband, that too for a consideration amount of Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner transferred Rs.30,000/- through ‘phone pay’ to accused No.2, and subsequently paid Rs.40,000/- by cash, even though the two were not related. This would make it - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:986 CRL.P No. 103841 of 2025 clear prima facie that there was a tacit understanding between them. 26. These are the aspects which are to be established by prosecution during the trial. Therefore, This Court at this stage does not find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 27. Insofar as, the alternate argument that is put forth on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a lady would be entitled for bail under Section 437(2) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, taking note of the fact that it is the petitioner who is the mastermind for taking away the life of a person, she cannot be shown any indiscretion by this Court. Accordingly, the said argument is also rejected. 28. Consequently, the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM/ Ct-cmu / LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3