Somavva W/O. Umesh Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION, DIST. GADAG, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

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

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS, 2023 SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 4 ON REGULAR BAIL IN SHIRAHATTI P.S. CRIME NO.183/2025 CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT AT: LAXMESHWAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 103(1), 191(2), 189(2), 80, 61, 85 R/W 190 OF BNS, 2023 & U/SEC 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1374 CRL.P No. 105193 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Heard Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel

¶29

for the petitioners and Sri. P.N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶30

Petition Section 483 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed with the following prayer:

¶31

“Wherefore, the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to

¶32

4 most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to ENLARGE the petitioners/accused No.2 to 4 on Regular bail in Shirahatti P.S. Crime No.183/2025 currently pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Court at Laxmeshwar for the offence punishable U/Sec.103(1), 191(2), 189(2), 80, 61, 85 R/w. 190 of BNS, 2023 & U/sec 3 & 4 of DP Act, in the interest of justice.”

¶33

During the course of arguments a memo came

¶34

to be filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

Memo reads as under:

¶36

“Herein, the counsel for the petitioner humbly submits as under:

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1374 CRL.P No. 105193 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The above said petition, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not pressing the same.

¶41

Hence, I may permitted to withdraw the petition for petitioner Nos.2 an 3, liberty to after the charge sheet in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶42

Placing the memo on record, the petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 is hereby

¶43

dismissed .

¶44

The petitioner/accused No.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased.

¶45

Case of the prosecution would reveal that there

¶46

was a demand of additional dowry and in that regard there was harassment.

¶47

Admittedly, petitioner/accused No.2 is the sisterin-law of the deceased and it is the omnibus allegation of the prosecution that she was also demanding additional dowry and was instigating other accused to harass the deceased, which resulted in ultimately the deceased falling into the water tank of one Narayan Naik.

¶48

4 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1374 CRL.P No. 105193 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Police after thorough investigation filed the

¶52

charge sheet.

¶53

Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in a matter of this nature, unnecessarily, all the family members would be roped in and there is no specific overt acts insofar as the present petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned and thus, sought for enlarging her on bail.

¶55

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the bail grounds contending that in the voluntary statement of accused No.1 also there is a specific mention that accused No.2 was residing along with other petitioners and the main accused who is the husband of the deceased.

¶56

Therefore, it should be presumed that she is also responsible for the dowry death of the deceased and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶57

5 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1374 CRL.P No. 105193 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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

¶61

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that charge sheet is filed and the allegations against the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.2 is not specific and omnibus in nature.

¶62

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents-in-law of the deceased and accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased.

¶63

Material collected by the Investigation Agency, prima facie depict that the death of deceased is a dowry death.

¶64

Be that as it may, it is for the Trial Court to record the evidence of the parties and arrive at a proper finding. For the present, since there is no specific overt act insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, continuation of the custody of petitioner No.1 is no longer warranted.

¶65

Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

¶66

6 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1374 CRL.P No. 105193 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

20. Accordingly, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) The petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2

¶72

and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned

¶73

is hereby dismissed by placing the memo on record.

¶74

(ii) The petition insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.2 (Smt. Somavva) is concerned is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶75

(a) Petitioner No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶76