- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14650 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED NASIM S/O MOHAMMED SADFI AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A GANESJ RENTED HOUSE KOTE BEEDI SARJAPURA TOWN ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA – 562 106. PERMANENT ADDRESS RATHANPUR VILLAGE GIDDAR POST SARAIAY POLICE STATION MUJAPURAPUR VILLAGE BIHAR STATE – 842 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 AND: STATE BY SARJAPURA POLICE STATION THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY HCGP (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) PIN CODE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.431/2024 OF SARJAPUR P.S FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1) AND 238 OF THE BNS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SITTING AT ANEKAL, IN S.C NO.5059/2025 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.431/2024 filed by the Respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was residing with his wife viz., Romaisa Khatun along with his eight children in a rented house of C.W.6. The petitioner was painter by profession. The deceased - Romaisa Khatun was the second wife of the petitioner. The petitioner had six children from his first wife and two children from the second wife. The deceased was a home maker. There was a dispute between the couple in respect of illicit affair of the deceased for the past one and half years. 3. On 07.11.2024 around 09.00 p.m., the petitioner, deceased and all children had dinner. The children, went to sleep around 10.00 p.m. The petitioner attempted to have sexual intercourse with Romaisa Khatun; however, she has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 refused. This led to a dispute that escalated into a quarrel. At about 11:00 p.m., on the same night, the accused being enraged by the refusal, assaulted and killed her. Thereafter, he disposed of the body by throwing it into a drain near his house. Specifically, he carried the deceased to the drainage and threw in to the drainage. Following the disappearance of his second wife, the accused deceived his neighbors (C.W.7 and C.W.8) by claiming that she had gone to her parents' house. 4. On 14.11.2024, C.W.1 reported a foul smell emanating from the gutter near his house to the Sarjapura Gram Panchayat Office. C.W.4 and C.W.5 were instructed to clean the drain. When they lifted the stone slab covering the drain, they found the decomposed body of woman. The body was unidentifiable due to decomposition and it was lying in the left side of the drain. C.W.2 identified the body as Romaisa Khatun, recognizing from her earrings, studs, and nose ring she was wearing. Therefore, the respondent police have registered a case. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 5. Heard Sri. Ranganath Reddy R, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he has been falsely implicated in this case. None of the witnesses have witnessed how the incident had taken place. In fact, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner was not aware about the whereabouts of the deceased. It is further stated that, the couple had a quarrel with each other and the petitioner had thought that she had been to her native. Therefore, he did not lodge missing complaint. Later, he came to know that she had been killed and her body was found near the house of C.W.7 and C.W.1. The petitioner is having eight children and he has to take care of them. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.12.2024. He will abide the conditions in the event of his release on bail. He may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 7. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader respondent - State vehemently submitted that there are circumstantial witnesses, viz., CWs.7 and 8. They have specifically deposed that the petitioner had quarreled with the deceased on the previous night when the incident had occurred. Thereafter, the second wife of the petitioner found missing, he has not lodged any complaint before the police. Therefore, he has to explain as to how she was killed in the house. The petitioner has committed heinous offence. Hence, accused is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Moreover, the accused is from Bihar and there may be chances of absconding from the case. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the complaint and charge sheet. Though, it is alleged that the present petitioner had killed his wife and thrown the dead body into the gutter, the fact remains that, C.W.7 and C.W.8 are the circumstantial witnesses. Mere making a quarrel in the house of the petitioner does not mean that the petitioner had killed his wife and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 thrown the dead body into the gutter/drainage. In fact, none of the children have been cited as witnesses to the incident. Moreover, he has to take care of his eight children. Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions that will take care of the apprehension of the prosecution: 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one local surety to the like sum for the purpose of ensuring his appearance before the trial Court. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13079 CRL.P No. 14650 of 2025 In case any of the conditions mentioned above is violated by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26