G.M. Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Accused No.1/appellant-G.M Mohan S/o Mahalingappa has preferred the appeal against the Order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1498/2026 dated 24.08.2026.

On the basis of the complaint filed by one Raghavendra H., Kadugodi Police have registered the case in UDR No. 21/2026 under Section 194(3)(iv) of BNSS. In this complaint, the complainant Raghavendra has suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 as to the cause of death of deceased child. However, the concerned police have not registered the case against them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have obtained anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.711/2026 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru dated 24.04.2026. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint filed by CW1-Praveen, Kadugodi Police have registered the case in Crime No.247/2026 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 238 read with 303(5) of BNSS and submitted the FIR to the Court on 05.06.2026. After registration of the case against the accused, in Crime No.247/2026, the Investigating Officer has submitted a requisition to the Magistrate for cancellation of bail. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed application under Section 480 of BNS for release them on bail before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Same came to be rejected on 05.06.2026. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and they were remanded to the judicial custody. Accused No.2-H.Priyanka filed an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1317/2026. Same came to be allowed on 09.07.2026. Accordingly, accused No.2-Priyanka H., was released on bail.

The bail application was filed by accused No.1 the appellant herein, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1498/2026. Same came to be rejected on 24.08.2026. Being aggrieved by this order appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Tomy Sebastian, would submit that the appellant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There are no ingredients for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS. The appellant is arrested on 05.06.2026. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet is already filed against the accused. Accused is not required for investigation. Accused No.2 is already released on bail by the Sessions Court. There is an abnormal delay in filing the complaint. After lapse of 70 days, the complainant has lodged a complaint, which is not properly explained by the prosecution. The appellant being a biological mother has informed her brother about the illness of the baby and requested him to inform the complainant. Since there was no cordial relationship with the complainant, the complainant has lodged false complaint against the accused. As per inquest mahazar, there were only scar injuries on the face and blood clots in the index finger and no one noticed any injuries on the abdomen. Hence, it is clear that the complainant and interested person have manipulated the post-mortem report. It is very surprising that before issuing the post-mortem report to the police, the husband of accused No.2, who was neither the complainant nor Investigating Officer, brought the post-mortem report on 04.04.2026 and found something strange. Even his sister advised him to lodge a complaint. He has not chosen to lodge a complaint up to 04.06.2026. As such, it is clear that the complainant has manipulated the documents and foist the false case against the accused/appellant. As per the complainant, he `got the post-mortem report on 04.04.2026. But neither the complainant nor the police, have suspected anything and complainant has lodged a complaint after consultation with his sister at UK. Hence, it is clear that they have manipulated the post-mortem report and falsely filed the complaint. As per records, the present complainant had filed a complaint on 25.03.2026 itself and requested the police to investigate the matter but there is no reference as to same either in UDR, in the complaint dated 04.04.2026 or in the remand application. Nowhere the Investigating Officer has whispered about the said complaint dated 25.03.2026. Hence, it is clear that the Investigating Officer has manipulated the documents and falsely implicated the appellant in this case. Further it is submitted that appellant and complainant had filed a mutual consent petition for dissolution of their marriage. But the complainant had refused to give consent before the Court at Mysuru. As such, accused No.2 has filed another petition for divorce before the Family Court at Bengaluru and summons was served to the complainant/husband on 02.06.2026. As a counter blast, the complainant has registered a case against accused No.2. It is further submitted that in respect of the very same complaint, the brother of this appellant had filed a complaint and same was registered in UDR No.21/2026. On that basis complaint, police have started harassing the accused, as such the accused have approached this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.711/2026 and the Court has granted the anticipatory bail. On that basis, appellant and accused No. 1 have complied the conditions by furnishing surety and co-operated with the police for enquiry. The police have recorded their statement and have also taken the custody of the vehicle in which the accused with baby, travelled lastly. But no incriminating evidence were available. As such police have not converted the said case. However, on the influence of the complaint, the respondent police have registered the case and arrested this appellant and after investigation, police have produced the accused with remand application seeking his judicial custody. Hence, the appellant is not required for further investigation. Further, it is submitted that the cause of death shows as suffocation on a severe lack of oxygen reaching the organs and brain. Since there were no injuries over the neck or nose part, the death might have happened due to putting AC in the car or in the house or for other reasons. But the husband who is having the enmity since he has not agreed for divorce and is residing separately, the complainant has foisted a false case and by influencing the doctor through his sister who is serving in UK has taken the post mortem report from the hospital and succeeded in manipulating the same and filed the complaint after lapse of 70 days. Hence, the story of the prosecution is doubtful and liable to be rejected. As per the story of the prosecution, accused no. 1 insisted the baby to eat ice cream which has fallen on the handrest in the car, in anger he had assaulted on the baby with his left hand elbow which caused injuries and resulted in the death of the baby and accused No.2 was not present when the incident took place. But the trial Court has observed that accused No. 2 confessed that accused No.1 has committed the murder. Hence, it is clear that the Session Judge, without applying mind has erroneously rejected the bail application filed by this appellant. The alleged confession statement of co-accused before Investigating Officer is not admissible against this appellant. Admittedly, there were no eyewitness to this incident. There were no external injuries over the body. The entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. There are no clinching evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. There is no motive alleged against this appellant. The appellant is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds sought for allowing the application.

To substantiate his argument he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NAGENDRA SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725.

On the other hand, learned Addl. SPP, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav has submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and absolutely that there are no materials to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. Further, she would submit that though the name of accused No.1 was shown in the UDR, the concerned police have failed to register the case against them. The inquest panchanama also discloses the names of these accused. Since the concerned Investigating Officer has not registered the case against these accused, after receiving this complaint from brother of CW1, the Investigating Officer has been suspended and Disciplinary Enquiry is also initiated against him and because of the negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer, case was not registered for 70 days. The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials to file charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. The post-mortem report reveals that the death is due to combined effect of asphyxia, as a result of obliteration of airway and blunt trauma to the abdomen sustained. Further opinion of the Senior resident of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology also reveals that death is due to asphyxia, as a result of obliteration of airway and blunt trauma to the abdomen sustained. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the appeal.

The statement of objection to the appeal is filed by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated the averments made in the statement of objection Further, accused No.2 has clearly stated that accused No.1 has confessed before her that he assaulted Venilla and murdered her. Accordingly, it is sought for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points arise for my consideration:

My answer to the above points are: Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: as per final order

I have examined the materials placed before the Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Raghavendra H, Kadugodi Police registered case in UDR No.21 of 2026 under Section 194(2)(iv) of BNSS, 2023. In the complaint filed by Raghavendra, the complainant has suspected the prime person Mohan G.M. as accused No.1 and Priyanka H who is the mother of the child as accused No.2. Though the complainant has suspected the name of Mohan G.M. and Priyanka H, Police have not registered case as Crime, instead registered the case in UDR No.21 of 2026. After filing UDR report, Mohan G.M. and Priyanka H., have obtained anticipatory bail in Cri. Misc.No.711 of 2026 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District dated 24.04.2026, pertaining to UDR No.21 of 2026. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint filed by CW1 Praveen, Kadugodi Police have registered case in Crime No.244/2026 against accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 read with 303(5) of BNSS, 2023 and submitted FIR to the Court on 5.06.2026. After registration of this case, the investigating officer submitted requisition to the Magistrate for cancellation of bail. Accused 1 and 2 have filed Application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District for releasing them on bail and the same came to be rejected on 05.06.2026. Thereafter, accused 1 and 2 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2-Priyanka H., filed application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Cri. Misc. No.1317 of 2026 and the same came to be allowed on 9.07.2026. The bail application filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Cri.Misc.No.1498 of 2026, came to be rejected on 24.08.2026. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant/Accused No.1, has preferred the present appeal.

On thorough investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused No.1-G.M. Mohan and accused No.2-Priyanka H, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) read with 3(5) of BNSS 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

In column 17 of the Charge-sheet, it is stated as under:

On perusal of materials placed before this Court, viz. Post-mortem report, Inquest mahazar, voluntary statement of the accused and also the mahazar conducted by the police, the same would reveal prima facie material against accused No.1. The commission of alleged offence is heinous in nature and punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The trial Court has rightly observed that after accused No.2 deserting her husband, the accused No.2 has been staying along with accused No.1 with her daughter Kum. Vennila and on the intervening night between 24/25^th March 2026, accused No.1 was in the company of accused No.2 and her daughter deceased Vennila. The incident in question occurred when the deceased Vennila was alleged to have been along with her mother accused No.2 and appellant-accused No.1. Therefore, there is no eye-witness to the incident.

Now, the investigating officer has collected sufficient material against accused No.1. Further the Special Court has observed that the Investigating Officer has been collecting substantial material against the accused and the case on hand is a cold-blooded murder of a young girl aged about six years, and rejected the application.

As regards delay of 70 days in filing the complaint against the accused is concerned, as already stated above, though the complainant has suspected the accused 1 and 2, the investigating officer has not registered the case as Crime, instead has registered as UDR 21 of 2026. In this regard, the learned Additional SPP has submitted that because of the negligence on the part of the investigating officer, case was not registered for 70 days and the concerned Investigating Officer has been suspended and Departmental Enquiry is also initiated against him in this regard. Therefore, the delay of 70 days in registering the case by the concerned police is not a ground for grant of bail.

On careful examination of the entire material on record, at this stage, this Court has noticed that there are prima facie material to constitute the alleged offence. I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.

For the discussion and reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

Appeal dismissed.