IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17070 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MR. AJITH SHA S/O PRAHAD SHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NEAR NISARGA COMFORT

3^RD CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-

PERMANENT ADDRESS R/AT BHANDARIDAYA VILLAGE CHARAMPA POST BHADRAK THANA DISTRICT ODISSA, STATE-756 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. RAKESH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRANKUMAR H.K, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJAS HRI AND:

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO KR PURAM PS REPTD. BY GOVT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR NO.661/2025 K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION PENDING IN 29^TH ADDL.CMM, COURT MAYO HALL BANGALORE CITY FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF BNS AND ETC.

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

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.661/2025 of K.R.Puram police Station, registered for offences under Section 103 of BNS.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the cousin of accused No.1. Even though CW.3 to CW.5 are stated to be eyewitnesses in the charge sheet, but on perusal of their statements, they are not eyewitnesses. CW.5 stated to have seen one male and female on the terrace on the date of incident. But no Test Identification Parade has been conducted to identify those male and female persons. There is no recovery from the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances at trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.08.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for further custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the petitioner is cousin of accused No.1. The accused persons conspired to kill the deceased as she was harassing accused No.1. All the accused persons went to the house of the deceased situated in the fifth floor and accused Nos.2 and 3 were standing on the terrace and accused No.1 went inside. Thereafter on receiving message from accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside the house. All the three together committed the murder of the deceased. The movements of the accused persons has been recorded in the CCTV and footage has been collected. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence. The charge sheet material show prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him.

With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other material placed on record.

6. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1, even though he has married to accused No.3, hiding it had married deceased and resided with her for some time. Thereafter he left her and enraged by that deceased started harassing him. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 planned to kill the deceased and they went to the house of the deceased. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were standing on the terrace and accused No.1 went inside the house of the deceased and subsequently, secured accused Nos.2 and 3 by sending message to them and all the three persons pressed the neck, put the pillow on her face and caused her death and made a scene that she has committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan. The presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 on the terrace has been noticed by CW.5, who has stated that she has seen one