Dismissed¶66

Naveen S/O. Hanamaraddi Lingadhal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026CRL.P/104256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; CRL.P No. 104256/2025; bail under S.483 BNSS 2023 refused/dismissed; BNS 2023 Ss.103(1), 85, 80, 49, 3(5) and Dowry Prohibition Act S.3; alleged dowry Rs.2,00,000/- and articles worth Rs.1,70,000/-; death by strangulation v. hanging left to trial; S.109 and S.118 BSA 2023 invoked; Crime No.94/2025; SC No.62/2025; liberty to renew bail on changed circumstances; NC: 2026:KHC-D:43.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; petition dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to renew the request if there is a positive change in circumstances during the trial. ¶66

Naveen S/O. Hanamaraddi Lingadhal Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; petition dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to renew the request if there is a positive change in circumstances during the trial.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether Accused No.1/petitioner Naveen is entitled to be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in Dharwad Sub Urban P.S. Crime No.94/2025 (offences under Sections 103(1), 85, 80, 49 and 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act), pending as SC No.62/2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad.

¶27

Court's answer

The complaint itself contains specific allegations that quarrels between the parties had to be pacified about five to six times by convening a panchayat before the unfortunate incident, a circumstance noted on meticulous perusal of the record.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the material collected by the prosecution indicates that the deceased Pooja died on account of strangulation and not by hanging.

¶52

Key takeaways

The question whether Pooja died a suicidal death or a homicidal death is expressly left to be determined during the trial.obiter¶55
The material on record at this stage indicates the role of the petitioner in the incident; since the incident occurred in the house of the accused, he is required to furnish necessary information as contemplated under Section 109 of the BSA, 2023.ratio¶56
The prosecution enjoys a presumption under Section 118 of the BSA, which the accused is required to rebut.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 104256 of 2025 (under Section 483, BNSS 2023) filed by Accused No.1 Naveen seeking bail in Dharwad Sub Urban P.S. Crime No.94/2025 — offences under Sections 103(1), 85, 80, 49 and 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — pending as SC No.62/2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad; his earlier bail application had been rejected by the Trial Judge. The Court noted complaint-specific allegations that marital quarrels had been pacified five to six times through panchayats; prima facie prosecution material indicating death by strangulation and not hanging (the suicidal-versus-homicidal question expressly left to trial); the incident having occurred in the accused's house, engaging the duty under Section 109, BSA 2023; the prosecution presumption under Section 118, BSA 2023 requiring rebuttal; and the accused's failure to report to police or move the injured to hospital. Holding: the prima facie materials disentitle the petitioner from bail under Section 483, BNSS; petition dismissed, with liberty to renew upon positive change in circumstances during trial. (V.SRISHANANDA, J.; 06.01.2026; NC: 2026:KHC-D:43)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104256 OF 2025

¶8

(439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NAVEEN S/O. HANAMARADDI LINGADHAL AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HIREKOPPA, TQ. NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG, NOW AT KELGERI, DHARWAD-580001.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, R/BY SPP, DHARWAD BENCH-580007.

¶15

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS 2023, PRAYING THAT ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN DHARWAD SUB URBAN P.S. CRIME NO.94/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SEC. 103(1), 85, 80, 49 AND 3(5) OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SC NO.62/2025. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Sri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶26

This petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS” ), with the following prayer:

¶27

“Praying that Accused No.1/petitioner may be released on bail in Dharwad Sub Urban P.S. Crime No.94/2025 for the offence p/u/sec. 3 of dowry prohibition Act and sec. 103(1), 85, 80, 49 and 3(5) of BNS 2023 pending on the file of Principal District And Sessions Judge, Dharwad in sc no.62/2025”.

¶28

The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶29

A complaint came to be lodged by Anand Raddi Doddamani before the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Sections 103(1), 85, 80, 49, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS” ), and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶33

The gist of the complaint averments reveals that the daughter of the complainant, by name Pooja (deceased), was married to Sri Naveen, who is the petitioner herein.

¶34

On 12.05.2022, at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and 25 tolas of gold were given as dowry, and utensils and household articles worth Rs.1,70,000/were also given. Thereafter, the couple lived happily for some time. Subsequently, there was a demand for additional dowry. When the demand was not met, an altercation took place in the matrimonial home. The same was intimated by Pooja to her parental home, and the matter was pacified by the complainant, who assured her that it would be sorted out in the near future.

¶35

When the matter stood thus, on 11.06.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., the complainant received a call from the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

father of the petitioner stating that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging. Immediately, the complainant, his wife, and relatives visited Kelageri in Dharwad and found that Pooja was no more, with blood oozing from her nostrils.

¶40

On enquiry, the petitioner stated that she had committed suicide by strangulation with the help of a chudidar veil. Thereafter, the police, based on the complaint, registered the case, conducted a thorough investigation, and filed the charge sheet.

¶41

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order granting bail was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

Sri B. V. Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the petition, vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and that, since the charge sheet has been filed, the continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted. He further submitted that there is no sufficient proof of any demand

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

for dowry, and that whatever was given at the time of marriage consisted only of customary articles and not dowry.

¶46

It is further pointed out that the grandmother of the petitioner hails from the family of the deceased, and therefore, there was no scope for any demand for additional dowry. It is also contended that, taking advantage of the unnatural death of the deceased, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner, and therefore, the grant of bail is sought.

¶47

Per contra , Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposes the bail petition, contending that the material on record clearly makes out a case that the deceased died a dowry death.

¶48

He further contended that on 10.06.2025, there was a telephone call made by the deceased, Pooja, to her family members. Call records have been collected by the Investigation Agency, which would prima facie show that all was not well in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

presumption available to the prosecution needs to be tested during the trial. It is further contended that the continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is necessary, as there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

¶52

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is pertinent to note that the complaint itself contains specific allegations that the quarrel between the parties had to be pacified about five to six times by convening a panchayat earlier to the unfortunate incident. 14. Despite the same, there was no happy married life between the deceased and the petitioner. What transpired on 10.06.2025 over the mobile telephone call is to be established during the trial by examining the parties. Prima facie , the material collected by the prosecution indicates that the deceased-Pooja, died on account of strangulation and not by hanging.

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Therefore, the question of whether Pooja died a suicidal death or a homicidal death is to be determined during the trial.

¶56

Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage indicates the role of petitioner in the incident. Since the incident occurred in the house of the accused, he is also required to furnish necessary information as contemplated under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama, 2023 (for short, ‘the BSA’).

¶57

Further, the prosecution enjoys a presumption under Section 118 of the BSA. Therefore, the accused is required to rebut this presumption.

¶58

Taking note that blood was oozing from the nostrils, prima facie , would indicate the external act and the probable cause of death.

¶59

It is also pertinent to note that the accused did not lodge a complaint with the police, nor did he take steps to shift the injured to the hospital so as to save her life.

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:43 CRL.P No. 104256 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

It was only after confirming the death of Pooja that the accused’s father telephoned the complainant about the incident. These aspects are to be established during the trial by adducing the necessary material evidence.

¶63

Thus, the prima facie materials at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of bail, by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶64

However, it is always open to the petitioner to renew his request if there is a positive change in circumstances during the trial. With that liberty, following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The petition is dismissed .

¶67

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶68

AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6

Naveen S/O. Hanamaraddi Lingadhal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen S/O. Hanamaraddi Lingadhal 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

Iranna S/O Manohar Jutti Vs Smt. Sushila W/O Chandrappa Kamble

Sharada W/O Geerish Nandanawad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar Vs Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Gonirudrappa Choudappa Tulajammanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Imtiyaz Ahemad M.J. S/O Late Zainul Abdeen Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mohan L Haramalakr S/O Laxman Haramalakar Vs State of Karnataka