- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103307 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: VIDYADHAR S/O. LINGAYYA NAIK, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O. MANNAHONDA, SHIRALI, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA. … PETITIONER (BY SRI ANUJ A. AGRANAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MURDESHWAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.483(1) OF BNSS( U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.) SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH S.C.NO. 24/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.306 AND 384 ARISING OUT OF IN CRIME NO.56/2023 IN MURDESHWAR POLICE STATION OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.02.11 14:18:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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.56/2023 by Murdeshwar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 384 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Anuj A. Agranayak, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was that Subraya Nayaka (complainant) filed complaint on 31.05.2023 stating that he was working in a hotel at Bengaluru, but was a permanent resident of Mannahonda, Shirali village, Bhatkal. And had come home for voting in elections. His brother Dinesh aged 28, who used to go to work at 9:30 – 10:00 a.m., everyday and return home at night, had not returned on that day. His mobile was switched off and he could not with his friends. Later Ganapati asked him to come near graveyard. He went there to find dead body of Dinesh lying in nearby Cashew plantation, with strangulation marks on his neck. On enquiry, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 Nagaraj and Ganapati told him, they found Dinesh’s motorcycle parked and on searching around they found him hanging by rope to tree branch. Hoping he was alive, they untied rope, but he had died. Assuming Dinesh (victim) had committed suicide, complaint was given. Same was registered as UDR no.10/2023, by Murdeshwar Police Station. 3. Next day, while cleaning victim’s room, he found a death note kept in notebook under straw-mat, in victim’s handwriting stated that petitioner was solely responsible for his death as he used a private matter to extract Rs.7,00,000/- from victim, but continued to harass with demand for more money. On receipt of same, Crime no.56/2023 was registered for offences of abetment of suicide and extortion. 4. It was submitted, prosecution could not rely solely on death note to establish offence as it had several lacunae, such date when it was written and particulars of payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. It was contended, only on alleged death note, he was arraigned. Further, there was only one reference which would not constitute inducement of such nature as would leave no other option to victim than to commit suicide. Especially when, there was no material to indicate mens rea of petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 to induce victim to commit suicide. In absence of overt acts of such nature, offence of abetting could not be substantiated. Prosecution neither collected any material to substantiate money transfer as stated in death note, nor FSL reports show any calls being made or received between petitioner and victim sufficient to implicate petitioner. 5. It was submitted, after petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2023, investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed on 10.08.2023, citing 33 witnesses in support of prosecution case. Therefore, commencement and conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. Since, petitioner was 26 years old law abiding citizen and sole bread earner of his family and permanent resident of Shirali and also as there were no criminal antecedents, continuation of petitioner in custody was not justified and sought for grant of bail, by relying on decisions of this Court in Naushad Ahmed v. State (Crl.P.no.7001/2019 disposed of on 23.10.2019) and BK Padmanabha Reddy v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.no.5775/2020 disposed of on 12.11.2020), wherein it was held mere naming of any person in death note was not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 sufficient for conviction under Section 306 of IPC. On above ground prayed for granting bail on any conditions. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent - State sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, prosecution had initially registered UDR no.10/2023 based on missing complaint but after finding death note of victim, investigation was for offences under Sections 306 and 384 of IPC and charge-sheet filed on 10.08.2023. 7. It was submitted, material collected during investigation would reveal that petitioner was a friend of victim. And victim was in love with CW.15 after death of her husband and intended to marry her. And victim had few intimate photos with CW-15 in his mobile, which petitioner had without his knowledge or permission transferred to his phone and thereafter began threatening to publicize them and extracting Rs.7,00,000/- from victim and asking for more. Continuous threats and demand for money left no option to victim than to commit suicide. 8. It was submitted, though charge-sheet was filed, certain reports were awaited and there was possibility of filing additional charge-sheet. But, if accused were released on bail, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 same was not only likely to hamper investigation, but also threatening of prosecution witnesses. Moreover, handwriting expert’s report confirmed that death note was by victim himself. Further, CW-15 had supported prosecution case, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, while Post Mortem Report indicated cause of death as due to asphyxiation due to hanging. Apart from above, recovery of photos and WhatsApp chat etc. were sufficient to substantiate offences during trial. It was submitted, demanding more money from victim even after he had paid Rs.7,00,000/-, would constitute sufficient inducement for suicide. Hence, petitioner was not entitled for bail. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 10. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 11. This petition is by sole accused seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime no.56/2023 by Murdeshwar Police Station for offences under Sections 306 and 384 of IPC i.e., for abetment of suicide punishable with imprisonment for upto 10 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2534 CRL.P No. 103307 of 2024 years and for extortion punishable with imprisonment for upto 3 years. Same would be grave and serious offences. 12. At outset, having due regard to ratio of decisions relied upon, there cannot be any dispute about proposition of law that mere naming of a person in death note would not by itself substantiate offence against such person, under Section 306 of IPC or 109 of BNS. However, in instant case, apart from death note, statement of CW-15 there is recovery of photographs and WhatsApp chat from mobile phones of victim and petitioner. Under such circumstances, whether same would be sufficient to establish charges can only be thrashed out at trial. Consequently, point for consideration in negative. 13. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3