SMT ANUSYA K R v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
that in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 480, 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 103(1), 238
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner is a lady aged 43 years and has no criminal antecedents. Her daughter, aged 17 years is pursuing her II PUC and there is nobody to take…
- Para 55. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader who has opposed the petition submits that the death has taken place inside the house, in which accused persons were living. The cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. The crime was…
- Para 88. Material on the record would go to show that the petitioner herein has two children and accused No.1, who is her son, is in custody. The daughter of petitioner namely Yashoda is cited as CW2 in the present case. Statement of the said girl…
Judgment
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENALRGE THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.10029/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU (SITTING AT HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 TIPTUR) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 103(1), 238, 3(5) OF BNS 2023 REGISTERED BY THE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE IN CRIME NO.35/2026. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused No.2 in SC No.10029 of 2026 pending before the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, setting at Tiptur, arising out of Crime No.35 of 2026 registered by Chikkanayakanahalli, Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.
#2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
#3. FIR in Crime No.35 of 2026 was registered by Chikkanayakanahalli, Police Station, Tumakuru against Channakeshava and petitioner herein, based on the first HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 information dated 19.02.2026 received from Shreenivasa son of Ramachandraiah. During the course of investigation of the said case, the petitioner was arrested on
19.02.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet is filed against 2 persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet and her son Channakeshava is arraigned as accused No.1. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc.No.10217 of 2026 was rejected on 17.06.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.
#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner is a lady aged 43 years and has no criminal antecedents. Her daughter, aged 17 years is pursuing her II PUC and there is nobody to take care of the said girl. The husband of the petitioner is living separately and her only son is in custody. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026
#5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader who has opposed the petition submits that the death has taken place inside the house, in which accused persons were living. The cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. The crime was committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of gain. He submits that in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the chances of she tampering with the material charge-sheet witnesses cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
#6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that deceased-Jayalakshmamma was the sister of petitioner herein. It appears that the husband of Jayalakshmamma, who was a teacher, had died and after his death Jayalakshmamma was appointed as a Second Division Assistant in the Education Department on compassionate grounds. Jayalakshmamma had no issues from her marriage. After the death of her husband, she was in a live-in-relationship with the first informant- HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 Shreenivasa. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were staying along with the Jayalakshmamma in her house.
#7. It appears that, prior to the date of incident, Jayalakshmamma had informed accused No.1 and 2 that she would be shifting to a new house along with Shreenivasa/CW1, which was opposed by accused persons. On the evening of 18.02.2026, there was a quarrel between accused persons, Jayalakshmamma and Shreenivasa in this regard and accused No.1 allegedly had threatened of dire consequences life of Jayalakshmamma in the event, she decides to shift to a new house along with Shreenivasa. Subsequently, Shreenivasa had returned home and on intervening night of 18.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, the accused persons allegedly committed the murder of Jayalakshmamma by smothering her with the help of the pillow. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she allegedly had caught hold of the neck of the Jayalakshmamma so as to enable the accused No.1 to smother her to death. According to the HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 prosecution, accused No.1 had an intention to claim compassionate appointment Jayalakshmamma. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
#8. Material on the record would go to show that the petitioner herein has two children and accused No.1, who is her son, is in custody. The daughter of petitioner namely Yashoda is cited as CW2 in the present case. Statement of the said girl would go to show that she is aged 17 years and is pursuing her II PUC. The husband of the petitioner has deserted her and for the last several years, the petitioner has been residing separately along with her children. It appears that she was working as a nurse in a private hospital. Though there are sufficient materials to connect the petitioner the crime, considering the fact that her minor daughter aged 17 years who is pursuing her II PUC, is required to be taken care of and also having regard to the proviso to Section 480 of BNSS, 2023, I am of the opinion that the prayer HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following: O R D E R The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No.10029 of 2026 pending before the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, setting at Tiptur, arising out of Crime No.35 of 2026 registered by Chikkanayakanahalli, Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:44130 CRL.P No. 9044 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010424772026 Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: that in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 480, 483; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 103(1), 238.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Feb 2026. The bench was S VISHWAJITH SHETTY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.