CRL.P/1460/2026 of MRS. FIRODS A @ FIRDOSE Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.447/2025 of respondent-police for the offences under Sections 108, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.12.2025, around 05.00 p.m., the deceased consumed alcohol and went to the house of the petitioners around 07.00 p.m., and asked his wife to accompany him. Petitioner No. 1 being a wife has refused to accompany him as there was difference of opinion between the deceased and the petitioner No.1 and she was not interested to accompany him. The deceased threatened her that he would commit suicide in front of her, if she fails to accompany him. Then, the petitioners scolded the deceased, telling him to “go and die” and went inside the house. In the

HC-KAR

meantime, the deceased poured petrol over his body and set himself on fire. Consequently, he sustained burn injuries and immediately, he was taken to Victoria Hospital. However, he succumbed to the said injuries on 27.12.2025 around 05.00 a.m. The mother of the deceased lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police have registered a case.

3. Heard Sri. S.J. Krishnaji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Harish Gangapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been wrongly implicated in this case. There was a difference of opinion between the petitioners and the deceased and she was residing along with her parents as the deceased used to harass her on one or the other pretext. He was not allowed her to live peacefully. The petitioners were aggrieved by his harassment and the threats made against Petitioner No. 1.

HC-KAR

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not expect that the deceased would pour petrol and set himself on fire. However, suddenly the incident had occurred. In fact, he was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment. The petitioners are the permanent resident of Vidyanapura, Bangalore and they are the members of the same family. 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.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the in-laws of the deceased. In fact, they instigated, humiliated and assaulted the deceased in front of their house. Consequently, he had committed suicide by setting himself on fire. The manner in which the petitioners have instigated would attract the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS 2023. Therefore, the alleged offence is heinous in nature. Therefore, it is not appropriate to

HC-KAR

grant bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP for respondent - State prays to reject the petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and she was residing along with her parents, as she had faced several humiliation and degradation in her matrimonial home. However, the deceased being husband of petitioner No. 1 used to go to the house of petitioner No. 1 and calling her to accompany him. She was not willing to accompany him. He was not leaving her alone. It appears that the petitioner was habitual drunkard and was not taking care of his wife and children. Consequently, Petitioner No. 1 was unhappy and resided with her parents, as she was unwilling to live with him.

8. On going through the averments of the complainant and other relevant documents available on record, I am of the considered opinion that, mere asking the deceased to ‘go and die’ would not attract the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS 2023. Having considered the nature and gravity of the offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

HC-KAR

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 to 4/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.447/2025 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 Investigating Officer within a period of one month 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.

HC-KAR

(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.: 1 Sl No.: 3