Dismissed¶56

Naveena @ Jollu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025CRL.P/8825/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail dismissed under Section 439 Cr.PC (also invoking S.483 BNSS); offences under Sections 302, 498A read with 34 IPC; death of wife Renuka with 20 unexplained postmortem injuries after assault inside matrimonial home in Mysuru; neighbour witnesses heard deceased shouting; charge sheet filed; accused in judicial custody since 06.05.2024; trial court bail rejected 22.04.2025; CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, decided 15 July 2025 by Justice S Vishwajith Shetty.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner failed to explain the injuries found on the body of the deceased, who was found injured inside the petitioner's own house; the neighbourers had stated that they heard the deceased shouting that she was assaulted by the petitioner. ¶52

Naveena @ Jollu Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8825 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAVEENA @ JOLLU S/O LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.603, 3^RD CROSS, K N PURA, MYSURU, KARNATAKA (THE PETITIONER IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY).

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MAHESHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SHO OF UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION REP. GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH SESSION CASE NO.178/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.69/2024 OF UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 302, 498(A) R/W 34 OF THE IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused no.1 in S.C.No.178/2025 pending before the

¶24

Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, arising out of Crime No.69/2024 registered by Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with 34 IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking regular bail.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.69/2024 was registered by Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and another based on the first information dated 06.05.2024 received from the father of

¶27

deceased Renuka who was the wife of the petitioner herein. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 06.05.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and another for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in S.C.No.178/2024 was rejected on 22.04.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who is an youngster is in custody for the last more than one year. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the person who had shifted the deceased to the hospital, and therefore, the allegations found in the charge sheet cannot be believed. Investigation of the case is completed and accused no.2 has been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the

¶34

petition submits that the incident in question had taken place inside the house of the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner after the deceased has died points out finger

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

against him. The statement of the neighbourers recorded

¶38

by the Investigation Officer clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Deceased has sustained 20 injuries on her body which is unexplained by the petitioner. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶39

First information is submitted by the father of the deceased. In the first information, it is stated that marriage of the deceased with the petitioner was performed about 1 1/2 years prior to the date of registration of the FIR. From the wedlock, the couple had no children. Petitioner was abusing and assaulting his wife for the reason that she had not conceived. On 05.05.2024, the first informant had received an information that his son-in-law had assaulted his daughter and his daughter who had suffered injuries was shifted to the hospital. Immediately thereafter, the first informant and his wife went to the hospital and found that their daughter had died. It is in this background, FIR was registered against

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the petitioner and his mother who is arrayed as accused

¶43

no.2 in the present case.

¶44

During the course of investigation, accused nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 06.05.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused nos.1 & 2 for the aforesaid offences.

¶45

In the charge sheet, it is alleged that after the marriage, petitioner was allegedly abusing and assaulting his wife for the reason that she had not given birth to a child. The neighbourers have also spoken to the said effect

¶46

and in their statement they have also said that on the night of 05.05.2024, they had heard the deceased shouting for the reason that petitioner was assaulting her. Since the petitioner and his wife were quarrelling oftenly,

¶47

the neighbourers had not intervened. As a result of the assault, Renuka had suffered multiple injuries on her body, and therefore, she was shifted to the hospital. In the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

hospital, it was declared that Renuka had died. However, petitioner who claims that he had shifted the injured Renuka to the hospital had failed to approach the police, and on the other hand, it was the first informant who had approached the police and based on his statement, FIR has been registered in the present case.

¶52

The incident in question has undisputedly taken place inside the house of the petitioner and the postmortem report of the deceased would go to show that she had suffered as many as 20 injuries on her body, of which most of the injuries are contusion and lacerated wounds. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted his wife with a wooden club. Petitioner has failed to explain the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased who was found injured inside the house of the petitioner, and on the other hand, the neighbourers have stated that they had heard the deceased shouting for the reason that she was assaulted by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:26377 CRL.P No. 8825 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59