- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7267 OF 2026 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GUNDU BOINA ARUNA @ ARUNA (A3) W/O. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A. MAIN ROAD, ANIKEPALLE, VENKATACHALAM, SURVEPALLI, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.524321. 2. GUNDU BOINA SRAVANI @ SHRAVANI (A4) D/O. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A. MAIN ROAD, ANIKEPALLE, VENKATACHALAM, SURVEPALLI, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 524321 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT PREMISES, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.No.147/2026, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(5), 80(2), 85 OF BNS, 2023, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED 29th CMM COURT, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY. THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 25.04.2026 IN CRL.MISC.No.2489/2026. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Bhadravadi Siddeswara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2026 registered by K.R. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘D.P. Act’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 3. The complaint came to be filed by Smt. G. Padmavathi against the accused persons in connection with the unnatural death of the complainant’s daughter, who died while undergoing treatment in an unconscious state with severe injuries. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment, mental and physical cruelty, and demands for dowry, which ultimately led to her death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the alleged incident took place at Bengaluru, where accused No.1 and the deceased were residing. It is further submitted that the petitioners are residing at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, and there is no prima facie material to indicate their involvement in the alleged offence. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the investigation is at the initial stage and, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may not co-operate with the investigation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 7. Prima facie perusal of the complaint indicates that, at the time of the alleged incident, the deceased was residing at Bengaluru along with accused No.1. The deceased was working as a Software Engineer in a company at Bengaluru. The complaint does not indicate that the petitioners were residing along with accused No.1 and the deceased. The material placed on record indicates that the petitioners are residing in Andhra Pradesh. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners were present in Bengaluru on the date of accident. Prima facie, there is no material to indicate that the petitioners would not co-operate with the investigation. The involvement of the petitioners can be investigated without subjecting them to custodial interrogation. However, in order to ensure their co- operation in the investigation, appropriate conditions can be imposed. 8. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in the event of their arrest in Crime No.147/2026 registered by K.R. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 80(2) & 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and each of them shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24802 CRL.P No. 7267 of 2026 the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (b) Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons. (c) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and shall co-operate with the Police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon. (d) The petitioners shall not involve in any offences in future. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64