IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15848 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SMT D V SUMANGALA W/O K.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.128, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT, ELE KODIGEHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 091.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.NEHRU.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJAS HRI Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA COURT OF STATE BY JNANABHARATHI P.S KARNATAKA BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL.SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT HER ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.461/2025 OF JNANABHARATHI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BNS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section

482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.461/2025 of Jnanabharathi Police Station for the offices punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on reading of the entire averments of the complaint, there is no any overt act against the petitioner.

The overt act alleged in the complaint is accused No.1, who is stated to have assaulted the deceased with a crash guard iron rod. In the averments of the complaint, there is only suspicion regarding the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner is a woman. She is ready to cooperate with the police in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State would contend that the petitioner made a phone call to her son, during which he allegedly overheard the conversation between the deceased and his mother, and provoked her son/accused No.1. The role of the petitioner is required to be ascertained, in view of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was a tenant in the house of complainant. As the investigation is in progress, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6. The complaint has been filed by the aunt of the deceased. The petitioner was a tenant in the house of complainant. The deceased was staying in the house of the petitioner. Accused No.1 is the son of the petitioner/accused No.2. As per the averments in the complaint, the deceased abused the petitioner and her mother, Padma, in filthy language and asked the petitioner to be his wife, stating that he would keep her. At that point of time, the petitioner made a phone call to her son, accused No.1, and asked him to hear what the deceased was saying. In response, accused No.1 questioned as to why he was using such words and stated that he would return to the house and teach the deceased a lesson.

Thereafter, accused No.1 came to the house, took a crash guard iron rod, and assaulted the deceased on the head and other parts of the body. As a result of the said assault, the deceased died in the house of the petitioner.

7. On reading of the entire complaint, there is no any overt act of assault is alleged against this petitioner. As per submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has provoked the accuse