Dismissed¶70

Nataraj S/O Basavaraj Kalavant Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2025CRL.P/101260/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 482 BNSS; absconding accused; unexplained abscondence; dowry demand and harassment; BNS ss.80, 85, 3(5); Dowry Prohibition Act ss.3, 4; Ashoknagar P.S. Hubballi Crime No.75/2024; C.C.No.2213/2024 JMFC-I Hubballi; prior rejection Crl.Misc No.5023/2025 First AD&SJ Dharwad 30.01.2025; child custody with grandfather; surrender and regular bail option; Justice V. Srishananda; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any suitable and proper explanation for the petitioners' abscondence from the date of the incident, the Court held they are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. ¶62

Nataraj S/O Basavaraj Kalavant Patil Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (parents-in-law of the deceased) are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in C.C.No. 2213/2024 arising from Hubballi Ashoknagar P.S. Crime No.75/2024 (ss.80, 85 r/w 3(5) BNS; ss.3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act).

¶28

Court's answer

In the absence of any suitable and proper explanation for the petitioners' abscondence from the date of the incident, the Court held they are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

Specific allegations are made against the petitioners in the complaint itself, and the statements of charge-sheet witnesses and other material documents prima facie establish the petitioners' role in the demand of dowry and the physical and mental harassment of the complainant's daughter before the incident.

¶53

Key takeaways

The death of the complainant's daughter took place in the house of the petitioners, who shared a common roof with accused No.1 when the incident took place.ratio¶55
The non-availability of the petitioners at their place of residence, as seen from the charge-sheet materials, is sufficient to term them absconding accused.ratio¶59
As regards the child born of the wedlock, it is open to the petitioners to hand over the custody of the child to the grandfather (the complainant) till they are able to seek custody through the process known to law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Justice V. Srishananda, 07.04.2025), CRL.P No.101260 of 2025 (438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS)): Parents-in-law of a deceased woman, shown as absconding accused in Ashoknagar P.S. (Hubballi) Crime No.75/2024 (ss.80, 85 r/w 3(5) BNS; ss.3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; C.C.No.2213/2024, JMFC-I Court Hubballi), sought anticipatory bail under s.482 BNSS after the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad had rejected their plea on 30.01.2025 (Crl.Misc No.5023/2025). The Court found specific allegations against the petitioners in the FIR, charge-sheet material prima facie establishing their role in dowry demand and physical and mental harassment, and that the death occurred in their house while they shared a common roof with accused No.1; finding no explanation for their abscondence since September 2024, it held they were not entitled to anticipatory bail, made out no grounds for invoking the special powers under s.482 BNSS, and rejected the petition, observing that they may hand over the child's custody to the maternal grandfather (the complainant) and remain free to surrender and seek regular bail.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101260 OF 2025 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NATARAJ S/O. BASAVARAJ KALAVANT PATIL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. NRUPATUNGA NILAY, 3^RD CROSS, FAKKIRESHWAR NAGAR, SHIRAHATTI, NOW AT H.NO.22, MANGESH NILAY, RAJANAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580032.

¶10

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶11

POORNIMA W/O. NATARAJ KULAVANT URF PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. NRUPATUNGA NILAY, 3^RD CROSS, FAKKIRESHWAR NAGAR, SHIRAHATTI, NOW AT H.NO.22, MANGESH NILAY, RAJANAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580032.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed byMALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYAKALMATH Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.04.09 15:58:06+0530

¶14

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ASHOK NAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THEM ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IT DEEMS FIT IN C.C.NO.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶22

2213/2024 (HUBBALLI ASHOKNAGAR P.S. CRIME NO.75/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC I COURT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTIONS 80, 85 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Sri. Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondentState.

¶27

Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNSS’) with following prayer:

¶28

“To enlarge them on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as it deems fit in C.C.No. 2213/2024 (Hubballi Ashoknagar P.S. Crime No.75/2024) pending on the file of JMFC I Court Hubballi for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 85 read with section 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.”

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶30

Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the petition

¶31

are as under:

¶32

Mallanagouda S/o Shivanagouda Patil, lodged a complaint with Ashoknagar Police Station, HubbaliDharwad Circle, which was registered in Crime No.75/2024 on 27.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 58 and 3(5) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶33

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that daughter of the complainant namely Vanishree @ Aadya Patil had been married to accused No.1Amoghavarsha about 4 years earlier.

¶34

For about an year, daughter of the complainant was looked after well and they have a child in the marriage. Subsequently, on trivial issues, there were frequent quarrels and bickering in the matrimonial relationship. The efforts made by the complainant and others to streamline the difference did not yield any

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶36

positive results. The differences got widened that the fidelity of the daughter of the complainant was also questioned, whereby there was physical and mental harassment to the daughter of the complainant.

¶37

Petitioners and their son went to the extent of threatening daughter of the complainant that they would take divorce and the child born in the marriage is not born to accused No.1. When the matter stood thus, there was also demand for dowry and in the complaint itself there are specific averments against the present petitioners as well.

¶38

On 27.09.2024 at about 8.45 a.m., accused No.1 telephoned to the complainant and complained about improper behavior of daughter of the complainant stating that she damaged the washing machine and also broke the glasses and sought for remedial action.

¶39

He also refused to hand over the telephone to the daughter of the complainant. On account of suspicious behavior of accused No.1, complainant said to have called

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶41

mobile telephone of his daughter. About forty five minutes thereafter, accused No.1 telephoned to the complainant and informed that daughter of the complainant is no more. Hearing such news, complainant said to have told accused No.1 that to take her to the hospital and they would rush to the Hubballi. Thereafter, complainant and others rush to the Hubballi. There they visited the Ashoknagar Police station. Police took them to the house of accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant was found lying in the bedroom and there were blood stains. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged.

¶42

Police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet showing the present petitioners as absconding accused. In the interregnum, the request made by the petitioners to seek grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, by order dated 30.01.2025 Crl.Misc No.5023/2025. Thereafter, petitioners are before this Court in the present petition.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶44

Sri.Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, learned counsel

¶45

for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently, contended that there is a small kid of three years and nobody is there to look after the said kid.

¶46

Petitioners being the father-in-law and motherin-law of the deceased had no role in whatsoever in the alleged incident since accused No.1 continued to be in the judicial custody. This Court may exercise special powers vested in it and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶47

He would further contend that if the petitioners

¶48

are not granted bail, the child will be left with no care and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶49

Per contra , Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposed the bail conditions with vehemence.

¶50

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶52

On such perusal of material on record, it is

¶53

crystal clear that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners as well in the complaint itself. Further, statement of the charge sheet witnesses and other material documents collected would prima facie establish the role played by the petitioners as well in demand of dowry and physical and mental harassment imparted to daughter of the complainant before the incident.

¶54

Admittedly, death of daughter of the

¶55

complainant has taken place in the house of petitioners. Petitioners did share the common roof along with accused No.1 when the incident took place.

¶56

Specific allegations are also found against petitioner No.2 in the complaint. Investigation Agency after thorough investigation, noting the material on record filed absconding charge sheet against the present petitioners are concerned.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶58

There is no explanation is forthcoming in the petition as to the abscondence from the date of incident till date. For the incident that took place in the September 2024, petitioners approached the District Court for grant of anticipatory bail only in the month of January and there is no explanation forthcoming as to where they were when the investigation was taken up.

¶59

Further, non-availability of the petitioners in the place of resident as could be seen from the charge sheet materials is sufficient enough to termed the present petitioner are absconding accused.

¶60

It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that person who seeks the anticipatory bail must be a law abiding citizen. In the case on hand, abscondence of accused persons has not only hindered the true course of justice inasmuch with available material, the Investigation Agency had to file the charge sheet, but also scuttled the investigation process.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶62

In the absence of any suitable and proper explanation forthcoming as to the abscondence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶63

Insofar as the interest of the child which was born in the wedlock between accused No.1 and the deceased, it is always open for the petitioners to hand over the custody of the child to the grandfather who is the complainant till petitioners were able to seek for custody through the process known to law.

¶64

Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any ground whatsoever much less good grounds to accept the request of the petitioners by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS.

¶65

It is always open for the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court and than seek for grant of regular bail.

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6084 CRL.P No. 101260 of 2025

¶67

If any such request is made by the petitioners,

¶68

trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law as early as possible uninfluenced by the observations made by the Court in this petition. Accordingly, the following order is passed.

¶69

ORDER

¶70

Criminal petition is rejected .

¶71

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶72

AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12

Nataraj S/O Basavaraj Kalavant Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraj S/O Basavaraj Kalavant Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H. Ganganna S/O. Mallayya Vs Sri. S. Prakash S/O. Sharanappa

Manjunath Moni S/O Narayanappa Moni Vs Smt. Gouramma Pochagundi W/O Laxmana

Manjunath Moni S/O Narayanappa Moni Vs Smt Gouramma Pochagundi W/O Laxmana

Shri Gangadhar S/O Irayya Hiremath Vs Shri Sampat S/O Hanumant Bandivad

Khalidmiya S/O Basha Sab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Parasappa S/O. Shatteppa Myageri Vs State of Karnataka