Partly allowed

Gururaj H v. the State of Karnataka by Holehonnur Ps

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026CRL.P/17171/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought for six accused in a dowry harassment and suicide case under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act offences. Accused No.1's petition was dismissed as infructuous after arrest; the court granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 to 6 with bond conditions, noting absence of proximate dowry allegations in the death note.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners Nos.2 to 6 granted anticipatory bail: personal bond Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety, appearance before IO within 15 days, cooperation and non-tampering conditions.

Gururaj H Vs the State of Karnataka by Holehonnur Ps — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17171 OF 2025 [(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)]

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GURURAJ H. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT NO.7B, CHOWDESWARI BEEDI, DINDADAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.

¶9

(DISMISSED AGAISNT PETITIONER NO.1 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.01.2026)

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT NO.7B, DINDADAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.

¶12

NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO. 25, MAHASATI KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.

¶13

KRISHNAPPA H. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT 25, MAHASATI KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KAVANA @ POOJA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAPPA H., R/AT NO. 25, MAHASATI KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.

¶18

RAJESHWARI H. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O.MAHESWARAK KESARI, R/AT SRI KANTESWARA NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRUCT - 577 217.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLEHONNUR P.S. BHADRAVATHI SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDITIONAL SPP; SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITION BEING FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN CRIME NO.336/2025

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

REGISTERED BY HOLEHONNUR POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 190, 351(2), 85 AND 80(2) OF BNS AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT BEFORE THE HOLE HONNUR POLICE STATION AND ON THE FIEL OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE COURT, FJMFC-I AT BHADRAVATHI TO ALLOW THIS PETITION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 6 under

¶33

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.336/2025 of Holehonnur Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 190, 351(2), 85 and 80(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner had filed a memo

¶35

stating that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 has been arrested and therefore, he is not pressing the petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Taking the said memo on record, the Court has passed order dismissing the petition by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 as it has become infructuous.

¶40

Heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State who is assisted by the learned counsel for defacto complainant.

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would contend that, the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 had taken place on 14.04.2025. The deceased stayed in the house of her husband till she left the house during September, 2025 i.e., 2½ months prior to the incident. He further contends that, thereafter the deceased has resided in the house of her parents. Even though there is allegation of harassment and dowry demand by the petitioners that may be 2½ months prior to the deceased committing suicide. There is no proximity of the harassment/ill-treatment by the petitioners demanding

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

dowry and the deceased committing suicide. The alleged harassment/cruelty said to have been meted out by the petitioners is not soon before the death of the deceased. Accused No.1 has already been arrested and he is in judicial custody. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing in Harihar and petitioner No.5/accused No.5 is the daughter of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 who works in an MNC company in Bengaluru. Petitioner No.6/accused No.6 who is one of the sister of the accused No.1 residing in Anavatti Village which is at a distance of 60 kms. from the husband's house of the deceased. The petitioners are undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate in the investigation and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent who is assisted by learned counsel for defacto complainant would contend that, the deceased has left death note which she has typed in her

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

mobile whatsApp. On perusal of the said death note, there

¶51

is serious allegation against the petitioners demanding dowry and harassing the deceased. The deceased due to harassment given by the petitioners has committed suicide by jumping into a river. The matter is under investigation. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against the petitioners is a heinous offence. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

¶53

The marriage of deceased with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 had taken place on 14.04.2025. After the marriage, the deceased started residing with the house of her husband. The allegation in the complaint that even though accused No.1 and his family members have promised to make a house in BRP, did not make that

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

house. The averments in the complaint itself indicates that, 2½ months prior to the complaint, the deceased came to her parents' house and resided there. The allegation against the husband of the deceased is that, she used to make a phone call to him, but he did not receive the said phone call. The averment of the complaint does not contain any allegation of the deceased residing thereafter in the house of her husband. The alleged harassment demanding dowry is 2½ months prior to the date of complaint. The deceased committed suicide on 24.11.2025. On perusal of the death note, there is no any allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioners. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 who is the mother-in-law of the deceased is aged sixty three (63) years and she is a woman. Petitioner Nos.3, 5 and 6/accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 are also women. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are stated to have

¶58

resided in Shikaripura and accused No.6 is stated to be resided in Anavatti Village. The petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

investigation and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners.

¶63

Considering all the above aspects, petitioner

¶64

Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6 have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions. In the result, the following;

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The Criminal Petition is allowed . Petitioner Nos.2 to

¶67

6 are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.336/2025 of Holehonnur Police Station and are ordered to be released

¶68

on bail in the event their arrest, subject to following conditions:

¶69

i) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:2777 CRL.P No. 17171 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

ii) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

¶74

iii) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in investigation.

¶75

iv) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called for.

¶76

v) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶77

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶78

KLV

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Gururaj H v. the State of Karnataka by Holehonnur Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gururaj H v. the State of Karnataka by Holehonnur Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.G.Venkataronappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Vijaya @ Vijayalaxmi Vs the State - through the Police Sub

Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Manjunatha K B Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Aleem @ Aleem Vs State of Karnataka