IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104639 OF 2025

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

RAJAMA W/O. BASEERSAB SANKANOOR,

AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. HOSUR, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI,

DIST. BAGALKOT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. CHITRA M.GOUNDALKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Digitally signed

BY KUMTA POLICE STATION,

by SAM REEN

AYUB REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

DESHNUR

HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.

Location: HIGH

…RESPONDENT

COURT OF

KARNATAKA (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.6/2024 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR BEING TRIED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED WITH KUMTA POLICE IN

CRIME NO.192/2023 AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.192/2023 of respondent- police for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w

34 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and the petitioner/accused No.3 are stated to have had illicit relationship with each other. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased. Both accused Nos.1 and the petitioner had conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 took the deceased on the pretext of visiting different places and took him to Mangalore where they were staying.

3. It is further stated that they visited different places and hatched conspiracy to eliminate the deceased in the said place. However, on the advice of accused No.4, they brought the deceased back to Sirsi in an Airavata bus and alighted near Anegudda temple. Thereafter, they took him to the nearby places where they made him to consume alcohol. After consuming the alcohol, they stated to have assaulted the deceased and killed him and took his mobile and threw the same into the forest area in order to cause disappearance of the evidence. In the meantime, the complaint came to be registered by the unknown person who is not relating to the deceased stating that one unidentified body found lying in the vicinity of the temple. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered. The respondent police after conducting investigation, submitted charge sheet.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and she has not committed any offences. However, she has been falsely implicated in this case.

5. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Mere recovery of phone at the instance of the petitioner is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner has committed murder of the deceased. None of the witnesses have stated about the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional police have created a false case in order to implicate all the accused along with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner being accused No.3 had illicit relationship with accused No.1. Both have hatched conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Investigation reveals that accused No.1 and others with a common intention to eliminate the deceased, committed murder of the deceased. The overt- acts of each accused has been explained in the charge sheet. The present petitioner is stated to be the main accused. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail.

Making such submission, the learned High Court Governm