Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/3433/2026 of SMT GEETHA Vs STATE BY on 9 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:19590 CRL.P No. 3433 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 593 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3433 OF 2026(439(Cr.PC)/ 483(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.593 OF 2026 IN
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3433 OF 2026(439(Cr.PC)/
483(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.593 OF 2026
IN CRL.P No. 3433/2026
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHA,
W/O. LATE SATISHA. B,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. KARTHICK SIGEHALLI,
GATE GIDDENAHALLI ROAD,
SURESH LAYOUT,
CHENNENAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-562130.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJAVARDHANA REDDY. B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION,
KENGERI SUB, BANGALORE CITY.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
PIN CODE- 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH. N, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA
N
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNSS ACT, 2023) PRAYING TO ORDER THE PETITIONER TO BE
ENLARGED ON BAIL IN CR.NO.299/2025 REGISTERED BY
KUMBALAGUDU P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
II A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
103(1),238,61(2)(a) OF BNS 2023 AND THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BENGALURU
RURAL
DISTRICT,
BENGALURU
HAS
DISMISSED
THE
BAIL
PETITION
ON
24.11.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.2185/2025.
IN CRL.P NO. 593/2026
BETWEEN:
KUM. SNEHA,
D/O. LATE SATHISH. B,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/A C/O. KARTHIK SEEGEHALLI,
GATE GIDDENAHALLI ROAD,
SURESH LAYOUT,
CHENNENAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA-562 130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY. R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION,
KENGERI SUB, BANGALORE CITY.
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HC-KAR
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
PIN CODE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS)
PRAYING TO ORDER THE PETITIONERS TO BE ENLARGED ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.0299/2025 REGISTERED BY KUMBALAGUDU
POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II
ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 103(1), 238, 61(2)(a) OF THE BNS 2023.THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 24.11.2025 IN
CRL.MISC NO.2185/2025.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
These petitions are arising out of the same crime number. Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P No.3433/2026 and Crl.P No.593/2026 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 respectively seeking regular bail in Crime No.0299/2025 filed by the respondent/police for the offences punishable
HC-KAR
under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 had married one Satish in the year 2001, and the said marriage was a love marriage. On account of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter, by name Sneha. It is further alleged that, Satish was not properly employed and was not taking care of accused No.1 and the child. Subsequently, the petitioner deserted them and left the place where accused Nos.1 and 4 were residing. Thereafter, accused No.1 started working in a garments factory and she was maintaining herself on her earnings. However, it is alleged that the deceased used to frequently visit the house of accused No.1 and pick up quarrels with her.
4. It is further alleged that whenever accused No.1 changed her place of residence, the deceased - Satish
HC-KAR
would trace her whereabouts, follow her, and subjecting her for harassment. In the year 2022–2023, accused No.1 decided to reside with her relative, who has been arrayed as accused No.2, and she was living with him. In the meantime, the deceased - Satish traced her address, once again, he started quarrelling with her, and insisting that she has to disclose the whereabouts of accused No.4. Being frustrated by the conduct of the deceased-Satish, the petitioners, along with others, committed his murder and thereafter, disposed of the dead body at Soolekere, Kempegowda Layout, 9th Block, Kenchanapura, within the jurisdiction of Kumbalagodu Police Station. It is further stated that the complainant, who was a stranger to the deceased, noticed the deadbody and lodged a complaint before the respondent–police.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent–police have registered a case and conducted investigation, and the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offences.
HC-KAR
6. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners are aged about 42 years and 23 years respectively and that they are the mother and daughter respectively. It is submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioners. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioners are not required for investigation. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their released on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that the petitioners are the wife and daughter of the deceased. It is submitted that they have brutally and mercilessly murdered the deceased, without regard to the
HC-KAR
fact that he was the husband of accused No.1 and the father of accused No.2.
8. It is further submitted that accused No.1, Smt.Geeta, was allegedly residing with accused No.2 despite the deceased being alive. When the deceased questioned the said illicit relationship, a quarrel had ensued between accused No.1 and the deceased. Thus, there is a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased, with the help of the other accused persons.
9. The materials collected during the course of investigation would indicate that the petitioners had strong motive and intention to commit the murder of the deceased and the same has been proved by way of filing the charge sheet. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for, in these petitions.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears that the entire case is based on circumstantial
HC-KAR
evidence. The petitioners are women. They are aged about 42 years and 23 years respectively. The allegations against the petitioners are that, being a wife and a daughter of the deceased, with the assistance of the other accused, committed the murder of Satish, who was the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2.
11. Be that as it may, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the petitioners are the mother and daughter respectively. It is a well settled principle of law that when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to apply the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Having regard to the said principle, it is appropriate to grant bail without adverting to the merit of the case.
12. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The petitions are allowed. ii) The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.299/2025 filed by the respondent/police for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(iii) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.
(vi) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal cases, till disposal of the case.
HC-KAR
In case, the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7