- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100318 OF 2025 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MAHADEVAMMA W/O. LATE MAREPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, 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 OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-580001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON ANTICIPATORY 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 TRAIL OF THE SAID CASE, BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING 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: 2025.02.27 15:54:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory 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.2 (petitioner). 2. Sri B. Anwar Basha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, Mahadevamma was 60 years old labourer permanent resident of Talwar street, Kampli taluk and a law abiding citizen. And though she was neither involved nor committed any offences, she was apprehending arrest in view of registration of Crime no.100/2024 (supra) arraigned her as accused no.2. Even in complaint, K.Hussainappa (complainant) stated that his younger daughter Sangeeta (victim) was married to accused no.1 on 18.12.2020. As agreed, at time of marriage 1 tola of gold was given to accused no.1. After marriage, accused no.1 and victim lived together happily for eight months. Thereafter, victim began complaining about accused no.1 not going to work regularly and harassing victim - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 to get money from her parents. He also suspected 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 and send her back with some money. Thereafter, complainant sold land belonging to him and 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 accused no.1 suitably, victim was sent to his house. But on date of complaint at 2:20 p.m., he received intimation from accused no.1 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 accused no.1 had instigated victim to commit suicide, complaint was filed and registered as Crime no.100/2024 (supra) by Kampli Police Station. 4. In view of above petitioner apprehended arrest. But in meanwhile charge sheet was filed on 13.11.2024 and hence he was not required for custodial interrogate. It was submitted, only statements recorded by Investigating Officer (‘IO’, for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 short) was from relatives and not independent persons. There were no clear averments about intention of petitioner to induce victim to commit suicide. 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 accused no.1 and victim along with petitioner. It was submitted, postmortem examination report indicated cause of death as due to asphyxia. Since incident was less than four - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 years from date of marriage it attracted 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 anticipatory bail by accused no.2, apprehending of arrest 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 suicide. However, these would be matters to be considered after trial. 9. Though petitioner was not arrested but prosecution had completed investigation and charge sheet filed, he would not be required for custodial interrogation and as 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.2 shall be enlarged on bail in event of arrest 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: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3810 CRL.P No. 100318 of 2025 a) Petitioner - accused no.2 shall appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days from date of this order and execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for likesum. b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and co- operate with investigation, if any. 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 EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18