Ningusa S/O Ramachandrasa Habib Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (PSI KESHAVAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI) REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURGI, (COMPLAINANT IN KESHAVAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.188/2024)

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS R/W. SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN KESHVAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.188/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 108, 3(5) OF BNSS.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶28

Heard Sri S.B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel for

¶29

petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶30

Petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya

¶31

Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the following prayer:

¶32

To enlarge the petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 on anticipatory bail in Keshvapur P.S. Crime No.188/2024 pending on the file of JMFC II Court Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNSS.

¶33

Facts which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under:

¶34

A complaint came to be lodged with Keshwapur Police Station by wife of Santosh Habib.

¶35

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that marriage of the complainant took place with Santosh

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶38

(deceased) 4 years earlier. But there were no issues in the matrimonial relationship and they were taking treatment.

¶39

When the matter stood thus, parents, brother

¶40

and sister of the deceased used to insult Santosh in this regard. There was some harassment in the matrimonial relationship which made the complainant to return to her parental place at Lattipete. There used to be usual phone calls between the deceased and herself.

¶41

When the matter stood thus, on 14.11.2024, at 8.00 a.m., there was a telephone call from the house of her husband intimating that Santosh committed suicide by hanging. Immediately herself and her parents visited the house of Santosh and found Santosh in hanging position.

¶42

On enquiry, Santosh’s parents told that after finishing the dinner at about 10.30 p.m. on 13.11.2024, Santosh went inside and next day morning at about 7.30 a.m., when they were about to sweep the house, they came to know about the hanging of Santosh.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶44

Thereafter she has complained that because of

¶45

the insult made by the parents, brother and sister of Santosh, has resulted in committing suicide by Santosh and sought for action against them.

¶46

After registering the case, police are investing the matter. During the course of investigation, police have recovered a death note which would prima facie point out the guilt towards the accused. Petitioners are not available to the Investigating Agency. Petition filed by them to the District Court seeking grant of bail is turned down by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶47

Sri S.B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel for petitioners contended that why Santosh committed suicide is not known to them and alleged death note is concoction.

¶48

He further contended that if the petitioners were responsible for the suicidal death of Santosh, they would have accomplished it much earlier and there is no iota of truth in the allegation made by the wife of the

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶50

deceased and the complaint is only with an intention to harass the petitioners and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶51

Per contra , Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail grounds.

¶52

Having heard the arguments of the parties in detail, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly, the investigation has crippled to a considerable extent for want of presence of petitioners.

¶53

Whether at all the death note is a valid death note or not cannot be decided by this Court that too at the state of considering the anticipatory bail application. At the most it is a fact that needs to be considered by the Investigating Agency, after enquiring the petitioners.

¶54

Directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer and allowing the Investigating Agency to conduct the custodial interrogation for a limited period

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶56

and thereafter enlarge the petitioners on bail would meet the ends of justice in the attendant facts and

¶57

circumstances of the case.

¶58

Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) Petitioners are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer positively on 24.03.2025 at 09.00 a.m.

¶62

(iii) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioners to custody and complete the custodial interrogation on the same day before 6.00 p.m. and thereafter enlarge the petitioners on bail, by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one sureties for the likesum.

¶63

(iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

¶64

(v) Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶65

(vi) Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4577 CRL.P No. 100065 of 2025

¶67

(vii) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶68

(viii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dharwad District without prior permission.

¶69

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the

¶70

prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶71

SD/(V.SRISHANANDA)

¶72

JUDGE

¶73

NAA CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Ningusa S/O Ramachandrasa Habib v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningusa S/O Ramachandrasa Habib v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vittal S/O Yallappa Yarnaikar Vs Shri Parashuram S/O Shankar Kirwadkar

Naveen S/O. Manjunath Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

B Jathappa Alias Kori Jatappa Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Satish Gona Aliyas Tinku S/O Tinku Shyam Gona Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Leena M Lewis W/O M Michael J Lewis Vs Mrs Bebi Anand Nagaralli