CRL.P/6064/2026 of SRI G C MANJUNATH Vs STATE BY ALDUR POLICE STATION on 17 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.45/2026 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 80, 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that, Sri. Ravindara Kumar H.T. son of late B.T. Thimmappa Gowda resident of Hasan, lodges a complaint stating that, he has performed marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 on 20.10.2019. It is stated that at the time of marriage, there were some misunderstandings between accused No.1 and the complainant relating to marriage and its performance. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given to accused No.1. After the marriage, his daughter was residing in her matrimonial home along with her husband and in-laws.

3. It is further stated that accused No.1 used to harass his daughter on one or the other pretext and also in respect of demand of additional dowry. It is further stated that,

HC-KAR

the deceased was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of the petitioners and accused No.1. It is further stated that on 05.03.2026 around about 1.15 p.m., the complainant has received an information that his daughter had committed suicide. The complainant and his relatives rushed to the spot, where they were shown the daughter's body in a hanging position. Therefore, he filed a complaint to conduct investigation and take suitable action against the persons who are responsible for the said incident. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police registered a case and the investigation is under progress.

4. Heard Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. K.N. Subba Reddy for the petitioners and Sri. Harish Gangapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, the allegations made in the complaint are baseless and bald. The averments of the complaint would indicate that the petitioners are the brothers and uncle of accused No.1 respectively. It is alleged that uncle

HC-KAR

of accused No.1 had attempted to commit rape on the wife of accused No.1 when accused No.1 and 2 had been to the hospital by leaving the deceased in the house of accused No.3. Accused No.2 being a brother of accused No.1 used to quarrel with the deceased and harassing on one or the other pretext. These allegations are baseless and bald and they have been made after the death of the deceased. Therefore, there is no sanctity to the said allegations.

6. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 has to take of his mother who is bedridden and she is counting her days. Petitioners are the only earning members of their family. The complainant made certain allegations due to frustration. Therefore, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions and they will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have

HC-KAR

been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the offence punishable under section 103 of BNS,2023. The said offence is considered heinous and evil to the society. Demanding dowry, harassing and subjecting the woman to cruelty in connection with such demands must be viewed very seriously by the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners would send wrong message to the society. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP for respondent - State prays to reject the petition.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the petitioners are brother and uncle of accused No.1 respectively. On overall reading of the averments of the complaint, it appears that certain allegations are made against the petitioners. However, those allegations do not constitute grave threat to the human life. It appears that the complainant lodges a complaint suspecting the involvement of the petitioners. Moreover, the cause of death yet to be ascertained. At this stage, the mother of the petitioner No.1 is

HC-KAR

a bedridden and she is counting her days. Petitioner No. 1, being her son, is required to take care of his aged mother. As per the averments of the complaint, petitioner No.2/accused No.3 was not at all present at the scene of occurrence.

9. Having considered the nature and gravity of the offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioners No.1 and 2/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.45/2026 of respondent-police for the aforesaid offences on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) They shall appear before the jurisdictional police within a period of one month

HC-KAR

from the date of receipt of this order, to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

(iv) They shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the final report.

(v) They shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

(vi) They shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

(vii) They shall not commit any criminal cases, till disposal of the case.

In case the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS, List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1