- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103583 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAHIMA W/O. TAYABU NADAF, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AJUR, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 2. SRI RAMESH S/O. MALLAPPA ALBAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, THROUGH MUDHOL POLICE STATION, MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN MUDHOL P.S. CR.NO.261/2024 FOR OFFENCES U/S. 108, 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT, MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, TO THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.30 14:27:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 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.261/2024 by Mudhol Police Station for offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’, for short) by accused no.1 and 2. 2. Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, about 9 years ago petitioner no.1 (accused no.1) had married Tayyabu (victim). On 02.10.2024, petitioners were arrested on basis of complaint filed by mother-in-law of petitioner no.1 dated 09.09.2024 stating that her son Tayyabu had married Rahima (petitioner no.1) about 9 years ago and were residing in Mudhol, where victim was working as a Fireman in Fire Department. It was submitted, they did not have any children. Since 2 – 3 years, Rahima was quarreling with him on flimsy reasons inviting advise/consoling by complainant. But about a year earlier, altercations between - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 husband and wife had also invited intervention by Mudhol Police and counseling before Santwana Kendra. 3. It was stated that three months prior to incident, Rahima had filed divorce petition and went back to her maternal home. On 05.09.2024, victim telephoned her to come over as he was unable to manage having food outside. And when she went there, on evening of 08.09.2024 victim went for work after having dinner and returned late. When asked for reason, he told her that his wife Rahima was calling him often, but his advocate had advised him not to pick-up call. When complainant asked him to receive call, Rahima demanded for Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance, to which he replied that as she was having illicit affair with someone else and should approach said person for maintenance. But Rahima abused him in vulgar words. Immediately, victim asked complainant to return back to her town and also offered to see her off. While returning when she found that her son was not following her, she went back at around 12:00 p.m., but found him hanging on a rope tied around his neck and roof angular. Thereafter neighbours came there and brought down body. Immediately intimation was given to police station. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 4. On search of victim, a death note was found in his pocket wherein it was stated victim knew about affair between Rahima and accused no.2 and her intention to obtain divorce was to marry him, which he believed would spoil her life. About they not having children, he had suggested adoption. But she continued illicit relationship and also confessed about it to victim on February 22nd showing a photo with accused no.2 kissing her on her cheeks. And before Mahila Santwana Kendra she stated that she was staying with accused no.2 and about failure of efforts for reconciliation before jamat at Mudhol, Jamkhandi and Athani as she was insisting on divorce/ maintenance from victim. Deeply hurt by said acts, and holding his wife responsible for his death, victim had committed suicide. Based on said complaint, Crime no.261/2024 (supra) was registered and petitioners were arrested on 02.10.2024. 5. It was submitted, contents of complaint did not contain any grave allegations as would constitute instigation sufficient to abet suicide. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, it was submitted a person can be alleged to have abetted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 commission of suicide only if he played an active role by an act or acts of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. And not merely on basis of allegations without material about mens rea. But in instant case, said material particulars were omitted. Therefore, no case of abetment of suicide could be made out against petitioners. 6. It was submitted, petitioners were law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents. Rejection of their bail application by District Court was only on ground of pendency of investigation which would not hold good as charge sheet was filed on 18.11.2024. It was further submitted, since charge sheet was already filed, there would be no need for persons presence of petitioners for custodial interrogation and conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed as prosecution intended to examine 25 witnesses. On said ground sought for allowing bail petition. 7. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset it was submitted, offences alleged against petitioners were heinous in nature. It was submitted, death of victim by suicide at his - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 residence was not in dispute. On search of body of victim had revealed a death note. Complaint filed on date of incident referred to death note in extenso and implicated petitioner no.1. It was further submitted, apart from death note, on recovery of mobile of victim, it was found that he had made three selfie videos also in nature of death notes, stating that reason for his suicide was his wife having affair with accused no.2. In view of said direct material, charges against petitioners were substantiated. 8. Heard learned counsel. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 10. From above, it is seen that this is a petition for regular bail by accused for offences under Section 108 and Section 3(5) of BNS. Offence under Section 108 is for abetment of suicide. Petitioner no.2 is person with whom petitioner no.1 is alleged to be having illicit relationship and have invocation of Section 3 (5) of BNS. Though abetment of suicide is punishable with imprisonment for upto 10 years and would be a grave - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 offence, prosecution material against petitioners appears to be substantially dependent on contents of death note allegedly written by deceased. Insofar as ingredients necessary to constitute offence of abetment of suicide, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online 107 has held as follows: “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 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 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 adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.” 11. Even in Arnab Goswami (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that unless acts complained were of such nature that they would not leave any other option to victim than to commit suicide, offence under said section could not be made out. Thus in said decisions, common practice by prosecuting agencies to arraign all family members of spouse of victim to assuade distraught family, without a practical and pragmatic analysis of material necessary for substantiating offence of abetment of suicide. 12. In instant case, prosecution firstly depends upon alleged affair between petitioner no.1 and 2. Secondly on persistent demand for divorce by petitioner no.1 coupled with demand for maintenance. Prima facie it is seen petitioner no.1 and victim were married for no less than nine years and bickering between them had begun since two years. Demand for maintenance allegedly made by petitioner no.1 is at Rs.5,000/- per month. Prima facie, allegations against petitioner no.1 do not appear to be of such abnormal or unreasonable nature, as to instigate victim to commit suicide. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 Prosecution case depends on circumstances to be required to establish during trial. Until then petitioners would be entitled to be considered innocent. They were arrested on 02.10.2024 and Charge Sheet filed on 18.11.2024. Purpose of bail, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not to punish undertrial but to ensure they attend trial. Concerns of prosecution about possibility of petitioners 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.1 and 2 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime no.261/2024 of Mudhol Police Station for offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) They shall execute a separate personal bonds in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with solvent surety for likesum to satisfaction of trial Court. b) They shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and co- operate with investigation. c) They shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1662 CRL.P No. 103583 of 2024 d) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities. e) They shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. g) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM,CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7