- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 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.100227 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. HANAMANT PUJARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BANAHATTI VILLAGE, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOTEE. (PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AS AN UNDER-TRIAL PRISONER) … PETITIONER (BY SRI AKSHAY R.MENSINKAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SC NO.5041/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT JAMKHANDI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.25/2024 OF BANAHATTI POLICE STATION FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE IPC 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.14 17:10:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 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.25/2024 by Banahatti Police Station, Bagalakote district for offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Akshay R. Mensinkai learned counsel appearing for Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, counsel petitioner submitted, case of prosecution against petitioner was that, complaint was filed by Raveendra Mopagar stating that his second daughter Aruna was married to petitioner about 16 years ago and from their wedlock they had two children aged 13 and 5 respectively. Petitioner and his wife were residing at Banahatti village. It was further stated that petitioner was not going for work and used to consume alcohol every day, ignoring pleas of victim against drinking. He also used to abuse victim and beat her asking her either to continue or to go away or die. Complainant further stated that victim used to narrate same to complainant over - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 phone for which complainant advised petitioner on several occasions to stop his addiction to alcohol. It was stated even community elders had also advised petitioner. But, on 29.02.2024 at 2:00 p.m. he received information about victim having committed suicide in her house by hanging. Immediately he went there and saw victim had hung herself to iron angular with saree. Alleging same was due to harassment by petitioner, complaint was filed. Based on complaint, Crime no.25/2024 (supra) was registered for offences under Section 306 of IPC. 3. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 01.03.2024 and while petitioner was in custody, investigation was completed and charge sheet filed on 14.04.2024. It was submitted petitioner was law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents permanent resident of Banahatti village having movable and immovable properties. Even if for sake of arguments averments in complaint were taken on their face value, they would not constitute inducement of such nature as contemplated in law for purposes of section 306 of IPC relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 Gujarat reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679. It was submitted since there were no eyewitnesses, prosecution case against petitioner was purely circumstantial. Moreover, charge sheet was filed and there would be no need for custodial interrogation. On said grounds learned counsel sought for allowing bail petition. 4. On other hand Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, there were clear averments in complaint about harassment meted out by petitioner to victim, especially his addiction to alcohol and not going to work. 5. It was submitted duing course of investigation prosecution had recorded statement of family members/ community elders who had advised petitioner as well as neighbours i.e., CWs.6 to 9 who had supported prosecution case. Postmortem report would indicate cause of death was due to asphyxiation. Incident had occurred in house of petitioner. Therefore, there was sufficient material for prosecution to substantiate charges. On above grounds sought for rejection. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 6. Heard learned counsel and perused material available on record. 7. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail on condition? 8. This petition for regular bail is in Crime no.25/2024 (supra) filed for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 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: “19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days. 20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.” 9. Even in Jayedeepsinh’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court same is reiterated. However, whether allegation against petitioner would constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC would be matter for trial. But taking note of fact that there are no eyewitnesses and prosecution case against petitioner is purely circumstantial and further as prosecution has completed investigation and filed charge sheet while petitioner was in custody and there would be no need for further custodial interrogation of petitioner, petitioner would be entitled to be enlarged on bail on conditions as would mitigate prosecution concerns. Point for consideration is therefore answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner - accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.C.no.5041/2024 on file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote sitting at Jamkhandi (in Crime no.25/2024 of Banahatti Police Station) for offence - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3036 CRL.P No. 100227 of 2025 punishable under Section 306of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner – accused no.1 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of trial Court. a) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. b) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. c) He shall forthwith inform any change of residence to Investigating Officer. d) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10