- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100209 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: ANJINI H. @ ANJINEYA S/O. LATE HOSAPETE MAREPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC, R/O. 19TH WARD, TALAWAR STREET, NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE, KAMPLI TQ., BALLARI DISTRICT-583132. … PETITIONER (BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH KAMPLI P.S. BALLARI), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-580001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.100/2024 REGISTERED BY KAMPLI P.S. BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 80(2), 85, 3(5) OF BNS 2023, PENDING TRIAL OF THE SAID CASE, BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI AT HOSAPETE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.14 17:10:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.100/2024 by Kampli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 80 (2), 85, 108, 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’, for short) by accused no.1. 2. Sri B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was based on complaint filed by K.Hussainappa stating that his younger daughter Sangeeta (victim) was married to petitioner on 18.12.2020. As agreed earlier, at time of marriage 1 tola of gold was given to petitioner. After marriage, petitioner and victim lived together happily for eight months. Thereafter, victim began complaining about petitioner not going to work regularly and harassing victim to get money from her parents and also suspecting her character on ground that she was speaking with others. Due to harassment, she frequently came back to her maternal home. Complainant used to console her and send her back with some - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 money. Thereafter, complainant had sold land belonging to him and had paid nearly Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. Complainant further stated, about a year prior to incident, there was conciliation by family and community elders and after advising petitioner suitably, victim was sent to his house. But on date of complaint at 2:20 p.m., he received intimation from petitioner stating that victim had committed suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan with a saree. On reaching spot, he found victim with strangulation marks on her neck. Suspecting that petitioner had instigated victim to commit suicide, complaint was filed and registered as Crime no.100/2024 (supra) by Kampli Police Station. 4. It was submitted, incident occurred on 21.08.2024, complaint was filed on same day. On 23.08.2024, petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation while petitioner was in custody, charge sheet was filed on 13.11.2024. It was submitted, only statements recorded by Investigating Officer (‘IO’, for short) was from relatives and not independent persons. There were no clear averments about intention of petitioner to induce victim to commit suicide. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 Allegations were not of such character as to cause inducement to commit suicide nor could be treated to be direct cause for commission of suicide. It was submitted, since charge sheet was already filed, there would be no need for custodial interrogation of petitioner, and also on ground that petitioner had no criminal antecedents, learned counsel sought for allowing bail petition. 5. On other hand, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition by referring to statement of objections filed. It was submitted, incident occurred on 21.08.2024, less than four years from date of marriage attracting presumption under Section 80 (1) of BNS. It was submitted, during course of investigation, prosecution had recorded statements of neighbours of victim i.e. CWs.14 to 17, who had consistently stated about harassment meted out to victim with dowry demand, frequent quarrels between petitioner and victim, petitioner being addicted to alcohol and not going for work regularly as well as suspecting her character. It was submitted, postmortem examination report indicated cause of death as due to asphyxia. Since incident was less than four years from date of marriage it attracted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 presumption under Section 80 of BNS, there was sufficient material to support charges. On said grounds sought for rejection of bail petition. 6. Heard learned counsel. 7. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 8. This petition is for regular bail by accused no.1 in Crime no.100/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 80 (2), 85, 108, 3 (5) of BNS. Case of prosecution against petitioner is purely circumstantial as there are no eyewitnesses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 and Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online 107 has held every incident would not constitute inducement to commit suicide unless it is of such nature as would have left victim with no other option than to commit suicide and act of inducement should be with intention to cause victim to commit suicide. However, these would be matters to be considered after trial. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 Since prosecution had completed investigation while petitioner was in custody and need for petitioner for any further custodial interrogation would not exist and held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, purpose of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and it can be neither punitive nor preventative and deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and that punishment begins only after conviction and until then every accused would be deemed to be innocent. Concerns of prosecution about possibility of petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses or fleeing justice could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Point for consideration is accordingly answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused no.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime no.100/2024 of Kampli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 80 (2), 85, 108, 3 (5) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) He shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3016 CRL.P No. 100209 of 2025 b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and co- operate with investigation. c) He shall not attempt to contact, threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not commit any offence. e) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8