Smt. Sahera Banu & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor (for short ‘Addl. SPP’) for the respondent/State. Perused the relevant materials on record.

This petition is filed by the petitioners/ the accused No.2 to 4 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) praying for an order to grant anticipatory bail in their favour directing the respondent Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.101/2026 of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur.

Learned Addl. SPP has not filed any objections to the petition. However, he has produced report of the Investigating Officer along with copy of the statement of Sri Maheboob S/o Khasim Sab Godekar, an eyewitness to the incident. On the basis of the said statement, the submission of the learned Addl. SPP is that there is prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail as sought for. Consequently, learned Addl. SPP has sought for dismissal of the petition.

The case alleged against the petitioners and accused No.1 is that the deceased is wife of the accused No.1 and the petitioners No.1 and 2 are mother and grandmother of the accused No.1. The petitioner No.3 is wife of brother of the accused No.1. The deceased married the accused No.1 about five years ago and at that time, the complainant gave five tolas gold and Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the accused No.1. For about six months after the marriage, the relationship of the accused persons and the deceased was cordial and thereafter, the accused No.1 and the petitioners subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment demanding further dowry. As on the date of the alleged incident, they quarreled with the deceased and she died consuming poison. Hence, the petitioners allegedly committed the offences.

The contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have not committed any offences. The relationship of the deceased with the petitioners are not in dispute. The learned Addl. SPP has relied on the statement of Maheboob S/o Khasim Sab Godekar, who is husband of the sister of complainant. The said witness in his statement has stated that on 02.07.2026 at about 04.10 p.m., he heard the quarreling noise from the house of the accused persons. But, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no mention in the statement that the petitioners have quarreled with the deceased and made her to consume poison. However, the investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to be completed. Hence, the contention of petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not merit consideration.

However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is absolutely no antecedent of the petitioners that they quarreled with the deceased earlier to the alleged incident. Moreover, the petitioners are women and the petitioner No.2 is aged about 60 years and they are permanent residents of Chittapur, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Magistrate and also of the trial Court.

There is no any special ground made out by the learned Addl. SPP to deny benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, the opinion of the doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased is kept pending till arrival of report of the Chemical/Toxicological & Histopathological analysis of viscera. Therefore, at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the petitioners to grant bail in their favour.

Any of the apprehensions of the learned Addl. SPP can be suitably met with by imposing necessary and stringent conditions on the petitioners making them to assist the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case. Therefore, the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail in their favour as sought for. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. However, the grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners/ accused No.2 to 4 cannot be a ground to grant bail in favour of the accused No.1 on the ground of parity.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, the respondent Police is directed to release the petitioners/the accused No.2 to 4 on bail in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.101/2026 of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 85 with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions that;

ii) They shall appear before the learned Magistrate and also before the learned Trial Court as and when directed.

iii) They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper further investigation of the case in any manner, and

iv) They shall not commit any similar offences or any offence during pendency of the case.

The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the custody of the petitioners with prior permission of the learned Magistrate, if the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for further investigation of the case.