- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103890 OF 2024 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI CHETAN S/O.CHANDRAKANT MALDAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANGASULI, TALUKA: ATHANI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591234. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE KAGWAD POLICE STATION, ATHANI CIRCLE, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR RESPONENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANTING THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL AS PROVIDED U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS, 2023 TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN KAGWAD P.S. CRIME NO.204/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 85 AND 108 R/W SEC. 3(5) OF BNSS, 2023, BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.22 10:43:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed by accused no.1 (petitioner) under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.204/2024 of Kagwad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’, for short). 2. Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was husband of Dhanashree, whom he had married on 28.11.2021 at Mangasuli, Kagwad Taluk and further that a son by name Vihan was born to them. It was submitted on 09.12.2024, his wife Dhanashree committed suicide at 6:30 p.m., in her bedroom. After receiving information about same, his mother-in-law (complainant) came over to Mangasuli and suspecting petitioner and his parents had abetted her daughter’s suicide, lodged complaint against them on 10.12.2024 at 3:00 p.m. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 3. It was submitted, in said complaint had alleged that upto six months after marriage, her daughter (deceased) was looked after very well by accused. Thereafter, they began harassing her by stating that she came from lower family status than them, did not cook food properly etc. Same was disclosed by her daughter (deceased) to complainant, when she came to her maternal home for Diwali festival. After mediation, she was sent back. But at 10:00 p.m., on 09.12.2024, one Ravindra Poojari of Mangasuli informed her that Dhanashree had become unconscious and admitted at Government Hospital, Kagwad. When she reach there, she was informed that Dhanashree had committed suicide by hanging in matrimonial home and immediately after noticing same, accused had shifter her to hospital as she was still conscious till then. Complainant further alleged that accused had harassed deceased both physically and mentally and compelled her to commit suicide and thereby committed offences alleged. 4. It was submitted accused were law abiding citizens, without any criminal antecedents, but apprehended arrest in pursuance of false complaint lodged against him. It was further submitted, there was one day delay in filing complaint and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 complainant had stated that complaint was filed after discussion with family members which would indicate that it was perhaps to tarnish image of petitioner. Besides, there were no specific allegations of grave instigation against any accused to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. It was submitted, when deceased was found hanging, she was still alive and was being taken to hospital, but, died midway. It was further submitted common bail petition was filed by all accused. Petition was allowed insofar as accused no.2 and 3, and petitioner’s application was rejected without any reasons. It was submitted, since there were common vague allegations against all accused and bail was granted to accused, no.2 and 3, petitioner was entitled for bail on ground of parity. And as there was imminent possibility of his arrest, if bail was not granted, he would suffer loss of reputation. Therefore, petitioner prayed for grant of anticipatory bail by imposing any conditions which he would abide. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mamta Kaur v. State of Punjab, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 53, and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in Smt.Parisha Trivedi - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024:CGHC:37340. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted offence alleged against petitioner was heinous. Dhanashree died at his residence within about 1½ years of marriage. Investigation was not yet completed and petitioner would be required for custodial interrogation. In compliant, there were allegations implicating accused for offences alleged. It was further submitted, fact that neither immediately after incident or thereafter, any of accused had informed complainant or her family members would cast serious doubt about involvement of accused in commission of offences alleged. Though incident occurred at 6:30 p.m., on 09.12.2024, complainant received information at 10:00 p.m. from Ravindra Poojari stating that deceased was unconscious and taken to hospital. On enquiry by complainant with neighbours, she came to know about death of her daughter by hanging, which had brooked suspicion. It was submitted, as investigation was still underway, grant of anticipatory bail, would hamper - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 investigation if not destruction of evidence. On said grounds opposed petition. 7. Sri Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel for applicant in I.A.no.1/2025, firstly prayed for allowing application in order to enable him to oppose application for anticipatory bail. His objections against main petition however, were similar contentions as urged by learned HCGP. Hence, application was taken up for consideration along with main matter. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 9. From above, points that arise for consideration are: “1. Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions? 2. Whether I.A.no.1/2025 deserves to be allowed?” 10. This petition is by accused no.1 seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime no.204/2024 of Kagwad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3 (5) of BNS. It is not in dispute that accused no.2 and 3 have succeeded in securing anticipatory bail. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 11. Case of prosecution is that Crime no.204/2024 of Kagwad Police Station was registered at 3:00 p.m., on 10.12.2024 on complaint filed by mother of deceased. As per complainant, her daughter Dhanashree married petitioner on 28.11.2021. And Vihan born from said marriage was about 1½ years old. It was stated when deceased visited maternal home for Diwali festival that she was looked after very well for six months at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband and parents-in-law together began harassing her on ground that she came from lower family status, which did not suit theirs and was unsuitable to live with them and also that she did not know cooking or performing household chores. They had also told her that she should leave the child with them, go away and die somewhere else. It was further stated that her daughter was sent back after Sandeep Dada Lambe and Praful Dada Lambe – her relatives advised accused to look after Dhanashree properly. But they failed to follow advise and continued to harass her. 12. And at 10:00 p.m. on 09.12.2024, she was informed by Ravindra Poojari of Mangasuli that her daughter had fallen unconscious and admitted to Government Hospital at - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 Kagwad and asking complainant to come next day. Alarmed by same, when she called Sandeep Dada Lambe, he told her that her daughter had died due to hanging and her body was kept in Government Hospital, Kagwad and asking her to come immediately. On reaching hospital, she noticed strangulation injuries around neck and nose. On enquiry, Ravindra Poojari informed them that on 09.12.2024 at 6:30 p.m., Dhanashree had hung herself with cloth in her bedroom at her home in Mangasuli. Thereafter, accused along with others brought her down and finding her alive they were taking her to hospital at Miraj, but she died midway, at 7:00 p.m. Complainant alleges that accused had tortured deceased mentally and physically and instigated her to commit suicide and therefore, they were responsible for her death. Complainant also states that complaint was filed after discussing within family members and by getting complaint written by someone else, but, confirming its contents. 13. There does not appear to be any dispute about occurrence of death as a result of hanging in bedroom at petitioner’s house in Mangasuli. While as per prosecution, accused abetted suicide, petitioner alleges it to be death by - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 suicide, which in either case would be matter for trial. Indeed, prima facie failure by accused to inform complainant about incident would appear abnormal, High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Smt.Parisha Trivedi’s case (supra), it is held in a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, it would not be necessary for Courts herein anticipatory bail application to take into account nature and gravity of acquisition, criminal antecedents and possibility of accused fleeing from justice. 14. Besides, there are no specific overt acts alleged exclusively against petitioner. In fact, they appear to be common against all accused. Since accused no.2 and 3 have already secured anticipatory bail, petition would deserve to succeed. 15. Objections of prosecution under above circumstances, would not hold. Likewise, not only on ground that contentions urged by applicant in I.A.no.1/2025 being similar if not same as urged by learned HCGP, but also on ground that provision under which application is filed namely Section 301 (2) read with Section 24 (8) of CrPC, (since - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 repealed), or under Section 338 (2) read with Section 18 (8) of BNSS, would be applicable only to trial and enquiries and apparently not at stage of consideration of bail applications. Hence, application does not deserve consideration at this stage. 16. For aforesaid reasons, point no.1 is answered in affirmative, while point no.2 in negative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.1 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of arrest in no.204/2024 of Kagwad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3 (5) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner shall appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum. b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. c) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1024 CRL.P No. 103890 of 2024 d) He shall regularly attend Court proceedings, and shall not leave it’s jurisdiction without prior permission. e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities and forthwith inform any change of residence to Investigating Officer. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23