- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103814 OF 2024 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SHANTALA W/O MALLINATH ANNEPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HUNNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE, PIN-587301. 2. SRI MALLINATH S/O BASAVANTAPPA ANNEPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE, PIN-587301. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI JAMKHANDI RURAL P.S. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 482 OF BNSS,) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS /A2 AND A3 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.105/2024 REGISTERED BY JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOTE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 3(5) 108, 80 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) R/W SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 14:18:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 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 under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘CrPC’) by accused no.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.105/2024 by Jamkhandi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3 (5), 108, 80 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘DP Act’). 2. Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners i.e. petitioner no.1 was 64 year old homemaker, while petitioner no.2 was 78 year old agriculturist; law abiding citizens and permanent residents of Honnur, Jamkhandi Taluk owning movable and immovable properties therein. It was submitted, they had neither committed nor involved in any offences including those alleged in Crime no.105/2024 (supra), which was totally false. As they were apprehending arrest in same, they had sought anticipatory bail. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 3. It was submitted, case of prosecution as per complaint dated 18.10.2024 filed by Anand (complainant) was that his sister Jyoti had married Amit Mallinath (accused no.1) on 09.02.2018 and begot son by name Vihan, now aged about 13 months. It was stated, though at time of marriage, they had given 60 grams of gold and Rs.1,50,000/- in cash apart from bearing marriage expenses, they had also given 10 grams of gold and clothes during baby shower function. It was further stated, though Jyoti led happy marital life for one year, thereafter accused began ill- treating her with demand to get more gold/money from her parents and also forced her to sleep outside home. And after she informed same to her parents, along with several elders, they had told accused that they had already given sufficiently at time of marriage and were unable to pay any more and advised them to look after her well. 4. It was further stated that about fifteen days earlier, she had returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, at about 7.00 p.m. on 18.10.2024, her husband called complainant informing them about Jyoti falling - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 unconscious, but later informing that she had tried to hang herself at home and therefore she was being taken to Siddi Vinayak Hospital, Jamkhandi for treatment, but had died on the way. Immediately complainant along with parents and others reached said hospital at 11:00 p.m. and found body of Jyoti lying in hospital. On examining, they found strangulation marks around her neck. And as she was in habit of sleeping at 11:00 p.m. and waking up at 07:00 a.m., they suspected incident to have occurred between said period. It was suspected that accused had abetted her to commit suicide by harassing her with persistent demand for dowry and thereby committed punishable offences. Based on same, Crime no.105/2024 (supra) was registered by Jamkhandi Rural Police Station. 5. It was submitted, though accused no.1 was arrested on 19.10.2024, due to non-filing of charge-sheet within stipulated period, he had availed default bail. It was submitted, there were no specific overt-acts alleged against each of accused except making general allegations against all of them together. It was further submitted, though - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 complainant had reached hospital at 11:00 p.m. on 17.10.2024, complaint was filed at 4:00 p.m. on 18.10.2024 without mentioning any reasons for delay and giving scope for after thought. 6. It was further submitted, marriage of accused no.1 with victim was on 09.02.2018 and there were apparently no complaints of any harassment during six years prior to incident. Same would give rise to possibility of arraigning petitioners for vengeance and to spoil their reputation by getting them arrested. It was submitted, while petitioner no.1 was woman, petitioner no.2 was in advanced age. Besides, they were permanent residents with movable and immovable properties and unlikely to jump bail. Therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail on any conditions which they undertook to abide. 7. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted, offences alleged against petitioners were heinous in nature and complaint contained clear and specific overt- acts against accused in relation to offences alleged. It was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 further submitted, during course of investigation, statements of relatives and elders were recorded, which would substantiate commission of offences alleged. It was also submitted as investigation was not yet completed, charge- sheet was not filed. Therefore, in case of grant of anticipatory bail, petitioners were likely to tamper with prosecution material/witnesses and hamper investigation. It was further submitted as it was a case of unnatural death within seven years of marriage inside matrimonial home, there was presumption under Section 80 of BNS against petitioners as they were residing in same house. Hence, presence of petitioners for custodial interrogation would be necessary. On above grounds sought for rejection of bail. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused available material on record. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 10. This petition for anticipatory bail is based on petitioners’ apprehension about their imminent arrest in Crime no.105/2024 (supra) for non-bailable offences. 11. Case of prosecution against petitioners as stated in complaint/FIR is that deceased was earlier married to accused no.1, and led happy marital life for about a year during which they had a son named Vihan. Thereafter, despite being given sufficient gold and money at time of marriage, accused began ill-treating deceased with demand for additional dowry, which continued even after intervention / advise by her parents and elders and ultimately abetting her suicide. 12. Prima-facie examination of complaint averments would indicate common/general allegations about ill- treatment, demand for dowry by all accused and abetting suicide of victim. There are no specific overt-acts alleged against accused individually. Accused no.1 though arrested on 19.10.2024 had obtained default bail. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 13. While, occurrence of incident within seven years of marriage cannot be denied, fact that marriage had aged without complaints about dowry harassment during said period would require consideration. Absence of any injuries on any other part/organ than neck in Post-Mortem Examination report, would indicate that there was no violence or physical force having played role. Though statements are stated to have been recorded, most of them are from relatives of complainant/victim. 14. Further, there is no denial or dispute of petitioners’ assertion about no criminal antecedents and they being permanent residents holding moveable and immovable properties. Contentions of prosecution about possibility of petitioners affecting or influencing prosecution witnesses or material and fleeing justice could be met by imposing appropriate conditions. For aforesaid, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioners/accused no.2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of their arrest in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 Crime no.105/2024 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3 (5), 108, 80 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioners shall appear before Investigating Officer, within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bonds individually for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties 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 mark their attendance before Investigating Officer every alternate Sunday between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until filing of Charge-Sheet. d) They shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. e) They shall not leave Bagalakote District, without prior permission, until completion of trial and forthwith inform change of residence to Investigating Officer. f) It is clarified that all observation herein are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1246 CRL.P No. 103814 of 2024 not bind trial Court at time of passing final order. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK/RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11