- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102168 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH @ UADAGATTI PRAKASHA S/O. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA @ UDAGATTI SHARADAMMA W/O. U. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 3. UMA @ UDAGATTI UMA D/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HOSAKERI VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI TALUKA, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH H.B. HALLI POLICE STATION, H.B. HALLI TALUKA, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER NO.1, 2 AND 3/ACCUSED NO.2, 3, 4 IN CRIME NO.17/2025 OF HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.114/2025, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 80, 85, 108 AND 190 OF BNS AND SECTION 3, 4 AND 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jairam Siddi, leaned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State and Sri Kiran M. Goli, learned counsel for de-facto complainant. 2 This petition is filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) / under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short) to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime No.17/2025 registered by the Hagaribommanahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS” for short”) and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“D.P.Act” for short) pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hagaribommanahalli in C.C.No.114/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 3 Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under: The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint making allegations that, the deceased Gouramma was given in marriage to accused No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.07.2023. After the marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home of accused No.1. The relationship of deceased and accused No.1 was in cordial for a period of three months. Thereafter, these petitioners and accused No.1 in collusion with each other started to harass the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, when the deceased pleaded her inability to get more dowry these petitioners alleged to have been harassed her physically and mentally. Thus, the deceased Gouramma informed the same to her parents. Thus, several panchayaths were convened in this regard. Accordingly, accused No.1 and these petitioners were advised to lead normal life. Hence, accused No.1 and deceased shifted to a separate rented house. Thereafter, the petitioners kept quite for few days and again started to pick up quarrel with the deceased and thereby tortured her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 physically and mentally. When things stood thus, on 29.01.2025 at about 6:30 p.m., petitioner No.3 called the de-facto complainant over phone and informed that the deceased Gouramma committed suicide by hanging herself. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged the complaint. This leads to registration of FIR and investigation. During course of the investigation, accused No.1 was arrested and he remanded to the judicial custody. 4 Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offences and they are not committed any offences as alleged. These petitioners are in-laws of the deceased. The deceased and accused No.1 were residing in a separate rented house. Therefore, the question of harassing the deceased by these petitioners would not arise and thus the allegations with regard to abetment of suicide or demand of dowry would not arise. It is contended that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. These petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 imposed by this Court. With these grounds he prayed to grant bail by allowing this petition. 5 Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant vehemently contended that there is prima facie case against these petitioners, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet has been filed before the Trial Court. The charge sheet material clearly discloses that there is sufficient material against the petitioners. If they are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and also cause hindrance to the case. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 6 On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the marriage of deceased and accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.07.2023. The relationship of the deceased with all the accused was cordial for a couple of years and thereafter accused No.1 and these petitioners started to harass the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 7 The charge sheet material also discloses that, several panchayats were held between the parents of the deceased and accused persons and later accused No.1 and deceased were residing in separate rented house and so also these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 were residing in separate house. Now the prosecution made allegations that, these petitioners were abetted the deceased Gouramma to commit suicide in connection with the demand of dowry and they were not providing proper food to the deceased in spite of she was pregnant and thereby these petitioners and accused No.1 are not allowed to lead her normal life. Hence, she committed suicide and the prosecution also made allegations that the allegations made against these petitioners and accused No.1, would attract section 304B of IPC. 8 Admittedly, in order to attract Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to the offence. It is also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, saying the no option and that it must have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 been intended to push the deceased Gouramma into such a position to that she commit suicide. 9 In the case of Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, wherein the Hon’ble Court at paragraph No.14, 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. 10 Under the fact and circumstances of the above case, the Court finds that, abetment as is necessary for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Whereas, in the instant case as per the contents of FIR, complaint and the charge sheet materials, it clearly reveal that these petitioners were residing separately and accused No.1 and deceased were residing together in a separate rented house. Hence, at this stage there is no prima face case for an offence under Section 306 of IPC insofar petitioners qua accused Nos.2 to 4. Admittedly, the 1 2021 SCC Online SC 737 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 investigation is completed and the investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. 11 Insofar as the allegations made by the prosecution to attract Section 304B of IPC is concerned, though the alleged offences occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, the entire allegation appears to be made against accused No.1. The death note stated to be pertains to the deceased Gouramma was sent to the handwriting expert/Forensic Science Laboratory, Ballari for examination, and the opinion of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ballari is as under: Opinion-. Colour tests, Thin layer chromatography and Gas chromatography Mass Spectrometric methods of analysis have responded negative for Residues of Volatile poisons including Ethyl alcohol, Pesticides, Drugs, Alkaloids, Toxic metal ions and anions in all the above stated articles. 12 Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of offence antecedents and character of the petitioners, the Court is of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for bail. Insofar as the allegations made by the prosecution, it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9065 CRL.P No. 102168 of 2025 must prove all these allegations in a full fledged trial. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The criminal petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner/accused Nos.2 to 4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in on C.C.No.114/2025 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli (arising out of Crime No.17/2025 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station) on the following conditions: (i) They shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. (iii) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly without fail. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. NOTE: The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6