- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104256 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NAVEEN S/O. HANAMARADDI LINGADHAL AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HIREKOPPA, TQ. NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG, NOW AT KELGERI, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, R/BY SPP, DHARWAD BENCH-580007. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS 2023, PRAYING THAT ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN DHARWAD SUB URBAN P.S. CRIME NO.94/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SEC. 103(1), 85, 80, 49 AND 3(5) OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SC NO.62/2025. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), with the following prayer: “Praying that Accused No.1/petitioner may be released on bail in Dharwad Sub Urban P.S. Crime No.94/2025 for the offence p/u/sec. 3 of dowry prohibition Act and sec. 103(1), 85, 80, 49 and 3(5) of BNS 2023 pending on the file of Principal District And Sessions Judge, Dharwad in sc no.62/2025”. 3. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Anand Raddi Doddamani before the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 Sections 103(1), 85, 80, 49, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”), and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that the daughter of the complainant, by name Pooja (deceased), was married to Sri Naveen, who is the petitioner herein. 5. On 12.05.2022, at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and 25 tolas of gold were given as dowry, and utensils and household articles worth Rs.1,70,000/- were also given. Thereafter, the couple lived happily for some time. Subsequently, there was a demand for additional dowry. When the demand was not met, an altercation took place in the matrimonial home. The same was intimated by Pooja to her parental home, and the matter was pacified by the complainant, who assured her that it would be sorted out in the near future. 6. When the matter stood thus, on 11.06.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., the complainant received a call from the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 father of the petitioner stating that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging. Immediately, the complainant, his wife, and relatives visited Kelageri in Dharwad and found that Pooja was no more, with blood oozing from her nostrils. 7. On enquiry, the petitioner stated that she had committed suicide by strangulation with the help of a chudidar veil. Thereafter, the police, based on the complaint, registered the case, conducted a thorough investigation, and filed the charge sheet. 8. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order granting bail was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 9. Sri B. V. Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the petition, vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and that, since the charge sheet has been filed, the continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted. He further submitted that there is no sufficient proof of any demand - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 for dowry, and that whatever was given at the time of marriage consisted only of customary articles and not dowry. 10. It is further pointed out that the grandmother of the petitioner hails from the family of the deceased, and therefore, there was no scope for any demand for additional dowry. It is also contended that, taking advantage of the unnatural death of the deceased, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner, and therefore, the grant of bail is sought. 11. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposes the bail petition, contending that the material on record clearly makes out a case that the deceased died a dowry death. 12. He further contended that on 10.06.2025, there was a telephone call made by the deceased, Pooja, to her family members. Call records have been collected by the Investigation Agency, which would prima facie show that all was not well in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 presumption available to the prosecution needs to be tested during the trial. It is further contended that the continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is necessary, as there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is pertinent to note that the complaint itself contains specific allegations that the quarrel between the parties had to be pacified about five to six times by convening a panchayat earlier to the unfortunate incident. 14. Despite the same, there was no happy married life between the deceased and the petitioner. What transpired on 10.06.2025 over the mobile telephone call is to be established during the trial by examining the parties. Prima facie, the material collected by the prosecution indicates that the deceased-Pooja, died on account of strangulation and not by hanging. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 15. Therefore, the question of whether Pooja died a suicidal death or a homicidal death is to be determined during the trial. 16. Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage indicates the role of petitioner in the incident. Since the incident occurred in the house of the accused, he is also required to furnish necessary information as contemplated under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama, 2023 (for short, ‘the BSA’). 17. Further, the prosecution enjoys a presumption under Section 118 of the BSA. Therefore, the accused is required to rebut this presumption. 18. Taking note that blood was oozing from the nostrils, prima facie, would indicate the external act and the probable cause of death. 19. It is also pertinent to note that the accused did not lodge a complaint with the police, nor did he take steps to shift the injured to the hospital so as to save her life. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025 20. It was only after confirming the death of Pooja that the accused’s father telephoned the complainant about the incident. These aspects are to be established during the trial by adducing the necessary material evidence. 21. Thus, the prima facie materials at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of bail, by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS. 22. However, it is always open to the petitioner to renew his request if there is a positive change in circumstances during the trial. With that liberty, following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6