Mohan P.M. vs State By Women Police Station, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District, Represented By Its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001

S Rachaiah, J

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.163/2025 of respondent-police for the offences under Sections 80, 115(2), 85, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhith, 2023 and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act').

Brief Facts Of The Case:

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of deceased-Susmitha. The complaint came to be registered by the father-in-law of the petitioner stating that he had performed the marriage of his daughter on 29.10.2024 with the petitioner. After the marriage, they were residing in Bengaluru in a rented house. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein was not interested to stay with the deceased-Susmitha and he used to quarrel with her and also he was instructing that she should go away from him.

It is further stated that a panchayat was held between the family members and they instructed the petitioner to take care of the deceased-Susmitha. Despite the said panchayat, accused No.1 did not mend his ways and continued to quarrel with her. Further, it is stated that the parents of the petitioner were insisting that she has to give divorce as she could not beget a child.

It is further stated that the in-laws of the deceased were forcing the accused No.1 to marry another lady.

Such being the fact, on 17.08.2025, the complainant had received a message stating that his daughter had committed suicide in her matrimonial home around 05.00 p.m. The complainant and his family members, after visiting the spot, lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others.

Based on the said complaint, the respondent-police have registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

Heard Sri.Naik Venkatraman Nagappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.N.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is none other than the husband of the deceased. On 16.08.2025, around 8.38 p.m., accused No.1 called deceased to go to the house of his sister on account of festival. Therefore, she had been assaulted and sustained bleeding injuries on her nose. The said fact was informed to the wife of the complainant. Later, on the following day, on 17.08.2025, she called wife of the complainant and informed about dissatisfaction meted out in her matrimonial home.

It is further submitted that on the same day, around 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m, she had committed suicide. Therefore, a case came to be registered against the petitioner and others.

It is further submitted that on the basis of the averments of the complaint, a case cannot be made out against the petitioner. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State vehemently submitted that ill-treatment and harassment had been taken place till the death of the deceased-Susmitha. There are witnesses to depose about the incident of harassment and ill-treatment. It is also borne out in the charge sheet that the deceased-Susmitha had no children. The parents-in-law were demanding to give divorce to their son to perform the second marriage. Being frustrated, she had committed suicide. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant bail as prayed for. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the charge sheet. No doubt the petitioner is the husband of the deceased - Susmitha. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2024 as per Hindu customs and traditions. They were living happily in a rented house at Bengaluru. After the marriage, it appears that they were not in good terms. It is further noticed that a panchayat was also held between the family members to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife. However, it has not been resolved. Further, it is noticed here that on 17.08.2025 there was a conversation between the deceased and CW.2 and the same day at about 04.00 p.m., it is stated that all the accused persons have scolded and harassed the deceased, as a result of which, she had committed suicide. Though, the averments of the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased, that itself is not sufficient to deny the bail.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.163/2025 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

(vi) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

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