Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 558
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
CHETAN ALIAS CHETAN V S/O GURUSIDDAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 100473 of 2025
The court held that the absence of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation justified the grant of bail despite serious allegations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 80, 85, 115(2), 352 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petition for regular bail in Crime no.150/2024 for offences related to dowry harassment and ritualistic coercion - Allegations included demand for dowry and forcing the victim to perform rituals; however, petitioner claimed no need for dowry due to his financial status and asserted the absence of criminal antecedents. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Nature of offences alleged, completion of investigation, and absence of prior criminal record are significant factors. Court found that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested following the suicide of his wife, who alleged dowry harassment and coercion to perform rituals. The complaint was filed by the victim's father.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner should be granted bail given the circumstances, including completed investigation and lack of prior offences.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the allegations, absence of criminal history, and completion of investigation warranted bail.
Result: Petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.150/2024 by Hosapete Town Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 80 , 85, 115(2), 352 read with 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’ for short) by accused no.1 (petitioner).
2. Sri B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was based on complaint filed by Veerashetti (complainant), father of Gayatri (victim) that his daughter Gayatri married earlier was residing with him after her divorce. Likewise petitioner was also divorced. Marriage of petitioner with Gayatri was solemnized on 22.04.2024 at Bidar as per Hindu customs. Thereafter, victim was sent to reside with her husband at Hosapete. Complainant stated that within one week that she informed him she was not happy in matrimonial home and that her husband’s family members were harassing her for dowry. When she came back to maternal home, a month after marriage, she complained that she was not being cared for very well in matrimonial home and they were in habit of picking mistakes in everything she did. She also stated, husband (accused no.1) and mother-in-law (accused no.2) told her they were expecting higher amount of dowry. After residing with complainant for about 45 days, she was sent back with her brother on 12.08.2024. Within two days thereafter she called complainant over phone to inform him that her sister-in-law Gayatri was suffering from Bhanamati and she was being asked to perform rituals which had instilled fear enough. Complainant had asked a relative to visit victim’s house and verify her well being. Relative had informed complainant that victim was under severe depression. Immediately complainant went to Hosapete and brought his daughter to his home. At that time, victim had reiterated her complaints against accused no.1 and 2 and her fear about strange rituals, she was asked to perform for her sister-in-law. She had also stated that when she protested, her husband and parents-in-law were enraged and had beaten her. Thereafter, petitioner had called complainant asking for victim to be sent back. Therefore on 20.10.2024, she was sent along with complainant’s younger son Sathish. It was stated, petitioner had assured complainant to take good care of victim, but on next day i.e. 21.10.2024 at 9:30 a.m., victim called complainant to inform him that sim card of her mobile phone was damaged and therefore her phone might be switched off. At 10:30 a.m., petitioner called complainant to inform that victim had tried to commit suicide, but was still alive and taken to hospital. Later complainant was informed that she had died. Alleging that due to dowry harassment and forcing victim to perform rituals, accused had instilled fear in mind of victim and she had committed suicide, complaint was filed. Same was registered in Crime no.150/2024 (supra).
3. It was submitted, there were two allegations in complaint firstly about dowry harassment. It was submitted, petitioner was running a travel agency and earning good income. Therefore, there would be no need for demanding dowry. Second reason requiring victim to perform rituals for curing ailments of her sister-in-law, it was submitted, petitioner’s two sisters were not residing at Hosapete, but at Tumkur and at Kurgodu respectively. It was further submitted, petitioner’s sister was under treatment for depression at Tumkur. Therefore, there was no truth in allegations.
4. It was further submitted, petitioner’s parents were retired and bedridden and as such dependent on petitioner. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2024 and while he was in custody, investigation agency had completed investigation and filed charge sheet on 09.12.2024. Therefore, there would be no need for any further custodi
