Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
CRL.P No. 12676 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 12873 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12676 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12873 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12676 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O. LATE SHIVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. BOGIAHNA HUNDI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
KOTEGERE
CHAMARAJANAGAR-109
(NAME MENTIONED AS PER AADHAR CARD)
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SUHAS T.L., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SARGUR P.S, GUNDLUPETE TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
CRL.P No. 12676 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 12873 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON
REGULAR BAIL IN THE ABOVE CASE IN CR.NO.12/2022
REGISTERED BY SARAGUR P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12873 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1 . NETHRAVATHI
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT MULLURU VILLAGE
SARGURU HOBLI, SARGUR TALUK,
MYSORE-571 124.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY
SARGUR POLICE, MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.185/2024 ON THE FILE OF VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT MYSORE,
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.12/2022 OF SARAGUR POLICE,
MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHBLE UNDER SECTIONS
302, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
CRL.P No. 12676 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 12873 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State in
both the petitions.
2. These two petitions are filed by the accused
Nos.1 and 2. The case of the prosecution is that the
accused No.1 who is the wife of the deceased having illicit
relationship with the accused No.2. When the same came
to the notice of the deceased, he assaulted her and
snatched her phone since accused No.1 was continuously
chatting with the accused No.2 and the said fact is also
informed to the other accused and he purchased one
mobile phone and gave the same to the accused No.1 and
accused Nos.1 and 2 were continued their acts. That on
21.01.2022 the deceased again noticed that accused Nos.1
and 2 were talking over the phone. The accused No.1
informed that other accused deceased had again snatched
the phone which was given by him to accused No.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
the deceased come to know about the illicit relationship
between them. Hence, the accused No.1 called the other
accused and planned to commit murder of the deceased
husband and on the same day, came to Mullur village in
the motorcycle and both the accused Nos.1 and other
accused conspired with each other and when deceased
came to the house around 9.30 pm and he was sleeping,
accused Nos.1 and other accused sharing the common
intention of committing the murder between 12.00 to
12.30 am committed the murder of the deceased by
squeezing the testicles. Based on the complaint, Police
have registered the case and investigated the matter and
filed the charge sheet against both the accused.
3. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of
accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4156/2022 vide order dated
23.06.2022 and also the other accused i.e., wife of the
deceased was also approached this Court by filing
Crl.P.No.3778/2022 and this Court vide order dated
14.06.2022 given permission to withdraw the petition on
the ground that charge sheet is filed and liberty to
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
approach the Trial Court. Now, both of them have filed the
petitions before this Court. Both the counsel in respective
petitions would submits that these two accused persons
are in custody from 22.01.2022. The counsel for the
petitioner also would contend that trial is not yet
commenced. The counsel also referring the judgment of
the Apex Court in case of Ankur Chaudhary V/s State
of Madhya Pradesh wherein in a NDPS case, taking into
note of the accused is in custody, granted the bail.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.12676/2024 also relied upon the order passed by
the Apex Court in a case of Sangram Sadashiv
Suryanshi V/s State of Maharashtra wherein a case of
offence under Section 489A, 489B and 489C r/w Section
34 of IPC, 1860 wherein accused person are in for more
than 2 ½ years and taking note of long incarcerations and
also liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, enlarged him
on bail. Hence, counsel relied upon these judgments of the
Apex Court and seeks for bail.
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
5. The counsel appearing for the other petitioner
would contend that case is rest upon the circumstantial
evidence and case comes within the purview of 304 part
II. Apart from that there is no any recovery and hence the
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per Contra, the counsel for the respondent-
State would contend that this Court considered the matter
on merits after filing of the charge sheet and while passing
an order this Court in paragraph No.6 made an
observation that both the petitioners who are in constant
touch with each other on the date of committing the
murder. This Court in paragraph No.6 also taken note of
the CDR which discloses that both of them are constant
touch with each other and phone calls were also made
from 4.00 pm continuously till 7.35 pm. Having taken note
of the said fact into consideration and also offence under
Section 120B of IPC is also invoked and both of them have
planned and conspired with each other to commit the
murder to eliminate the husband of the accused No.1 who
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
is coming in the way of continuation of illicit relationship
between both of them and dismissed the bail petition.
7. The counsel appearing for the respondent-State
also contend that in a case of committing the murder with
conspiracy and shared the common intention and
punishment is also provided for life imprisonment and the
judgment which is relied upon will not comes to the aid of
the petitioner and hence, prays this Court to reject the bail
petition.
8. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent and this Court
earlier considered the case of the prosecution in a
Crl.P.No.4156/2022 while exercising the discretion and
rejected the same and also the earlier petition filed by the
wife was dismissed and the same was not pressed. Having
considered the material on record, the case also though
rest upon the circumstantial evidence, particularly the CDR
report clearly discloses that both of them were constant
touch with each other on the particular date of committing
the murder of the husband of the accused No.1 and the
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
cause of death is also on account of squeezing of testicles
of her husband and that too in the mid night in the house
of accused No.1. The case of the prosecution that the
other accused who is the paramour had been to the house
of the accused No.1 and both of them conspiring each
other eliminated the husband of accused No.1. When such
material available on record and also when the case is
considered after filing of the charge sheet and rejected the
bail petition and only on the ground that they have been in
custody from 22.01.2022 cannot be a ground to exercise
the discretion in favor of the petitioner as the offences
invoked against the petitioner are 302 R/w 120B of IPC for
criminal conspiracy and life imprisonment is provided for
the said offence. Having considered the material on
record, question of recovery doesn't arise as contended by
the counsel that no recovery. In a case of squeezing of
testicles, question of recovery does not arise and only
motor cycle is recovered and the same is used to go to the
house of other accused No.2 and the same was seized and
when such material available on record, I do not find any
NC: 2025:KHC:1656
ground to exercise the discretion. The citations relied upon
by the accused No.2 are in respect of offences of NDPS as
well as the counterfeit and in those cases also they were in
custody for a period of 2 ½ years. The offences under
Section 302 R/w Section 120B of IPC invoked against
them and the same cannot be a ground in a case of
heinous offence of committing the murder of the husband
of the accused No.1 along with other accused who is none
other than the paramour and life imprisonment is provided
to the above offence, and hence, I do not find any ground
to exercise discretion. Hence, no grounds are made out in
both the petitions to enlarge them on bail.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Both the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
