- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100354 OF 2025 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MADHURA W/O. BANAKARA BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TOWN, RQ. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583212. 2. DR. BANAKARA BASAVARAJA S/O. BANAKARA AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TOWN, TQ. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583212. 3. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KATTEBENNURU VILLAGE, TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583216. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (H.B.HALLI POLICE STATION) REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.03 14:20:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C. (482 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, TO ENLARGE THE PRESENT PETITIONERS, WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.3 TO 5 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI P.S. CRIME NO.171/2024, DATED 15.12.2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 80, 85 AND 103 R/W. SECTION 190 OF BNS AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.171/2024 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 103 read with Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’ for short), by accused no.3 to 5 (petitioners no.1 to 3). 2. Sri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for petitioners submitted Smt.Madhura (petitioner no.1) was a 30 year old homemaker, Banakar Basavaraj (petitioner no.2) was 44 years - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 of age running Polyclinic, who were permanent residents of Harapanahalli; while Smt.Siddamma (petitioner no.3) was a 38 year old homemaker and permanent resident of Kattebennur village. They were law abiding citizens and were not involved in any offences. But, were falsely implicated in above complaint in order to wreck vengeance and spoil their reputation. Thus, they were apprehending arrest for non-cognizable offences alleged therein. 3. It was submitted, case of prosecution was that in complaint filed by Smt.Bharati U., (complainant) at about 12:00 p.m. on 15.12.2024, she stated that after receiving intimation about death of her sister - Mangala @ Chandana (victim). When she went there accompanied by her mother and relatives, they were informed that body was taken to Govt. hospital at Hagaribommanahalli (‘HB Halli’ for short). On reaching hospital and enquiring about cause of death, she found it was unnatural death and suspected it to be due to harassment for dowry. 4. Immediately, she inspected bathroom where victim had died and found that she was physically tortured and killed by strangulation. Immediately, accused no.1 and 2 surrendered before police. Thereafter, complainant discussed about incident - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 with her relatives, took them to spot and with intention to secure justice for her sister, filed complaint on 15.12.2024. Same was registered as Crime no.171/2024, arraigning Kotresh as accused no.1 and Parvathamma H., as accused no.2 apart from petitioners herein as accused no.3 to 5. 5. Learned counsel submitted, though there were general allegation about demand for dowry and physical harassment, same are without particulars or directed against any particular person. It was submitted, admittedly, victim died in her matrimonial home in HB Halli, whereas petitioners no.1 and 2 were residents of Harapanahalli and petitioner no.3 was resident of Kattebennur, Hadagali Taluk. Therefore, they were not connected with offence alleged. On above grounds sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted offence alleged against petitioners were heinous. Victim died at his residence within about 1 year of marriage. In compliant, there were specific allegations about demand for dowry and ill-treatment of victim. And merely on ground that petitioners were residing separately, they would not be entitled for bail. It was submitted, as investigation was still underway, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 grant of anticipatory bail would hamper investigation if not destruction of evidence. On said grounds opposed petition. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 8. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners were entitled for anticipatory bail on conditions?” 9. From above, apprehension of petitioners about imminent arrest stems from registration of Crime no.171/2024 for non-bailable offences arraigning petitioners as accused no.3 to 5. 10. Offences alleged are under Section 80 of BNS i.e. dowry death punishable with imprisonment from 7 years extendable upto imprisonment for life; cruelty against married women under Section 85 of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto 3 years and murder under Section 103 of BNS punishable with death or imprisonment for life which are all non-bailable offences. As per complaint, victim died due to physical and mental harassment with demand for dowry and with said intention causing death of victim about 1 year of marriage. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 11. Though it is contended by learned HCGP that there were specific allegations about demand for dowry and causing death by ill-treatment, cursory perusal of complaint averments do not indicate any specific overt acts alleged against accused separately. Aadhar Card and other records produced before this Court would indicate that petitioners were residing separately at Harapanahalli while incident took place at HB Halli. Post Mortem Report shows cause of death “due to Mechanically Asphyxia leading to Respiratory Failure”. Admittedly, no other injuries were noted on body of victim as would indicate use of violence or physical harassment. Petitioners are permanent residents of Harapanahalli and Kattebennur and without any criminal antecedents. 12. Time and again Courts have noted tendency of distraught families on death of their daughter to arraign all family members without sufficient reason for suspicion. Though, prosecution has expressed concerns about investigation being hampered and prosecution witnesses being threatened. Same could be managed by imposing appropriate conditions. 13. For aforesaid reasons, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused no.3 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of arrest in Crime no.171/2024 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 103 read with Section 190 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, subject to following conditions: a) Each of petitioners shall individually appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bonds for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety each for likesum. b) They shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation, as and when required and co-operate with investigation. c) They shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) They shall not leave jurisdiction of Vijayanagara District without prior permission, for a period of six months or till filing of charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2032 CRL.P No. 100354 of 2025 e) They shall forthwith inform any change of their residence to Investigating Officer. f) It is clarified that view expressed herein are prima facie consideration and shall not be binding or affect final outcome. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14