CRL.P/16408/2025 of DR. SRINATH CHOWDAPPA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 19 June 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16408 OF 2025

(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1.

DR. SRINATH CHOWDAPPA,

S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

R/AT: #6, 2ND CROSS,

WEST LINK ROAD,

MALLESWARAM,

BANGALORE – 560 003.

2.

PRAVEEN KR,

S/O RANGASWAMY K.C,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

R/AT 1207, SVAMITVA EMERALD

SQUARE, BOMMASANDRA,

BENGALURU – 560 099.

3.

RANGASWAMY K C,

S/O LATE CHINAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

LAKSHMI NIVASA, RATNAGIRI

EXTENSION, KEMPANAHALLI,

CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.

4.

PREMA,

W/O RANGASWAMY K.C,

Digitally

signed by

SUSHMA

LAKSHMI

B S

Location:

High Court

of

Karnataka

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

LAKSHMI NIVASA, RATNAGIRI

EXTENSION, KEMPANAHALLI,

CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.

5.

PRATHAP K R,

S/O RANGASWAMY K.C,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

290, PREETHINAGAR

VIDHANSOUDHA,

LAGGERE,

BANGALORE -560 058.

…PETITIONERS

(BY DR. SRINATH CHOWDAPPA., P1, PARTY-IN-PERSON; BY SRI. KRISHNA RAO. M., ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P5)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION,

MADHURAI-KANYAKUMARI HIGHWAY,

NEAR ELECTRONICS CITY,

BANGALORE – 560 099.

REP BY S.P.P.,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOPKUMAR., HCGP)

----

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS)

BY THE PARTY IN PERSON PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

HC-KAR

RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THESE PETITIONERS ON

BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST ON THE BASIS OF

COMPLAINT

LODGE

BY

THE

COMPLAINANT

BY

NAME

JAYAPRABHA, HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR HENCHMEN

IN GENERAL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTION.118(1), 351(2), 352 R/W 3(5) OF BNS.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND

RESERVED

ON

02.04.2026,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

1.

The petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.751/2025 filed by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Factual matrix of the case:

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the

complainant is the wife of petitioner No.2 by name Praveen K.R. The marriage between them was solemnized

HC-KAR

on 12.06.2025. At the time of marriage 250 grams of gold, 250 grams of silver and Rs.50,000/- cash was paid as a dowry and marriage expenditure of Rs.17,00,000/- was also spent by the complainant and his family members.

On 24.07.2025, they started residing at Jigani, Bengaluru.

Where, it is alleged that she had been subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. On 08.11.2025, her husband alleged to have assaulted her to bring dowry. On 12.11.2025, she was thrown out from his house. Hence, she lodged a complaint. The respondent –

Police have registered a case and conducting the investigation.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences.

The petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint against the complainant Smt. Jayaprabha and others on 13.11.2025.

However, on 29.12.2025, a false case has been registered against the petitioners in order to over come the complaint filed by the petitioner No.2.

HC-KAR

4.

It is further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner No.2 is absolutely baseless and bald.

It is made against the petitioner only to harass the entire family. Therefore, the petition may be allowed by imposing conditions. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

5.

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State vehemently submitted that the averments made in the complaint clearly would indicate that the complainant had been subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry.

Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Making such submissions learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint,

HC-KAR

it appears that, the said complaint has been filed on 29.12.2025

making

certain

allegations

against

the

petitioners. However, petitioner No.2 being husband of the complainant had lodged a complaint much earlier than the complaint filed by the complainant. Having considered the delay in lodging the complaint, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition.

7.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following: