- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101649 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OP BNSS) BETWEEN: SIDDU @ SIDRAMESHWAR, S/O. VIGNESH MALLIGWAD, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. HOSAKATTI VILLAGE, KUNDGOL TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KUNDGOL POLICE STATION, KUNDGOL, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.5094/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI WHEREIN CHARGE SHEET IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.329(4), 75, 352, 108 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED, ARISING OUT OF KUNDGOL P.S. CRIME NO.86/2024 AND FIR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.103, 238, 49, 329(4), 75, 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in Crime No.86/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 49, 329(4), 75, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Naya Samhita (BNS). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 30.07.2024, the first informant lodged a missing complaint alleging that in his house, he, his mother Kashavva, wife Manjula and three children were staying. On 29.07.2024 at 6.00 p.m., the first informant left the house to attend the death ceremony of a relative at Kalaghatagi and he returned around 09:30 p.m. and his wife was missing. Accordingly, they searched her here and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 there. Later, he came to know that as on the date, i.e., on 29.07.2024 at about 07:35 p.m., the mother of the first informant was in the house, the accused came to the bedroom of deceased Manjula and insisting her to have sexual intercourse with him and also insisting her to elope from the house by leaving the company of the first informant. He also abused Manjula in filthy language and abetted her to go and die. On 08.08.2024, the dead body of Manjula was traced near the canal of Kamalapur village and Devanur village. Therefore, the complaint was lodged and this led to registration of FIR and investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation against the petitioner to attract the alleged offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life and the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 Court. With these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition. 5. Learned HCGP for the respondent – State contended that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. The offences are non-bailable in nature. If he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Thus, he prayed for rejection of the petition. 6. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the first informant is none other than the husband of deceased Manjula. On 29.07.2024 at about 07:30 p.m., the accused entered the house of first informant, insisted the deceased Manjula to have sex with him, as she refused to have sex with him, he insisted her to elope with her and took her to perform her second marriage. As the deceased Manjula denied his proposal, he also abused her in filthy language and intentionally insulted her, provoked her by saying that ‘go and die else - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 where’. As per the statement of CW9, Smt. Kashavva, the mother of the first informant and mother-in-law of deceased, who has stated before the learned Magistrate while recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Section 184(5) of BNSS), that the accused entered the house and that he was sleeping underneath the cot. But she has not stated before the Magistrate alleging that the accused abetted the deceased Manjula to commit suicide and she has not stated that the accused insulted her and abused the deceased by saying that ‘go and die elsewhere’. 7. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there is no nexus and proximity with conduct of the petitioner with that of suicide committed by the deceased. Admittedly, in order to attract Section 306 of IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also required an active act or direct act which lead deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 been intended to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide. 8. In the case of Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 737 at Para No.15, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC." 9. In the facts and circumstances of the above case, the Court finds that abatement as is necessary for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Whereas, in the instant case, as per the contents of FIR and Complaint, at this stage there is no prima facie case for an offence under Section 306 of IPC against the accused. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 10. Admittedly, investigation is completed and the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet. If the bail is granted to the petitioner, the question of tampering the prosecution witnesses would not arise. 11. Considering the nature of offences, gravity of offences and the antecedent character of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly. iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478 CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025 v. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any such offences in future. Violation of any of the above conditions, will entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. NOTE: The above observation are made, only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17