Karnataka High Court
Smt Allabu W/O Husensab Gonnaddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
CRL.P No. 100163 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100163 OF 2025
[438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SMT.ALLABU W/O. HUSENSAB GONNADDI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. IBRAHIMPUR, 7TH CROSS, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KASABAPETH P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
... RESPONDENT
MANJANNA E
E Date:
2025.02.03
14:20:31
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
+0530
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS
2023, PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN C.C.NO.2547/2024 (CRIME
NO.54/2024 OF KASABAPETH P.S., HUBBALLI), PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC-III, HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 304B, READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
CRL.P No. 100163 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') for grant of
anticipatory bail in Crime no.54/2024 by Kasabapeth Police
Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A and
304(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
'IPC') by accused no.2 (petitioner).
2. Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted case of prosecution was Abdul Rehaman
(complainant) filed complaint at 11:00 a.m. on 03.06.2024,
stating that his daughter Najmeen (victim) married Ibrahim
Hussainsab (accused no.1) on 30.10.2022. At that time he had
given ½ Tola of gold as agreed and instead of Rs.20,000/-
cash, he had given Rs.15,000/- and sought time for paying
remaining. When victim went to her husband's house, she
found apart from her husband and parents-in-law, even her
brothers-in-law were residing together.
3. And, she often told complainant, that from date of
marriage, her husband and his family members abused and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
beat her on flimsy reasons and also prevented her from
speaking to anyone on mobile. But he had advised them
against ill-treatment. Despite same, they had not stopped
harassing her with demands for dowry. He further stated that
victim had called him and told him that accused no.1 had tried
to strangulate her and threatened her with dire consequences,
in case she spoke to her parents.
4. Thereafter at 5:00 p.m. on 10.05.2024, his relative
Basir Karajagi informed him that when crowd had gathered in
front of his daughter's house, he went there and saw
complainant's daughter lying dead. On going there complainant
also saw his daughter had died with hanging marks around her
neck. On enquiry, her mother-in-law told him that victim was
found hanging and immediately brought down. She in very
casual manner asked complainant to enquire with his dead
daughter about reason for hanging herself. Thereafter, he took
his daughter to KIMS Hospital at 5:40 p.m., where doctors
examined and declared her dead. Alleging that victim's
husband, parents and brothers-in-law had harassed her with
demands for dowry and compelled her to commit suicide,
complaint was filed on same, Crime no.39/2024 was registered
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
by Hubli - Dharwad City Women Police Station for offences
stated above, which was later transferred to Kasabapeth Police
Station on 03.06.2024 and re-registered as Crime no.54/2024
(supra).
5. It was submitted, reading of complaint would
indicate that allegations made were vague and without any
specific overt acts as would meet ingredients of offence of
dowry death. It was submitted, only to wreck vengeance
against family members of spouse, petitioner herein was
arraigned. It was submitted, there were also several
discrepancies in spot panchanama conducted on 11.05.2024,
complaint had shown spot as bedroom on first floor of house,
whereas in complaint, he stated he saw body lying on ground.
It was further submitted, though allegations was demand for
dowry by accused, in Shadinama it was recorded that groom
paid Rs.5,786/- as Meher. Therefore, allegations that victim
committed suicide due to persistent demand for dowry would
not be substantiated.
6. It was further submitted, there were no specific
averments about demand of dowry soon before incident. It was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
submitted, there were no criminal antecedents and petitioner
was permanent resident of Hubli having been deep roots in
society. It was further submitted, prosecution had completed
investigation and already filed charge-sheet on 03.07.2024.
Therefore, presence of petitioner for custodial interrogation
would not be necessary. It was further submitted, this Court on
25.01.2025 granted bail to accused no.3. On said ground also
petitioner was entitled for bail. On above grounds, sought for
grant of anticipatory bail.
7. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned
HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition. It was
submitted, though charge-sheet was filed on 03.07.2024, it
was by showing petitioner as absconding and by splitting-up
charge-sheet. Therefore, petitioner's claim for anticipatory bail
on ground that investigation was completed would be
untenable. It was submitted, grant of bail to accused no.3 was
on ground that he was residing separately, but, in case of
petitioner, she was mother-in-law of deceased victim and
residing in same house. It was submitted, there were specific
allegations against petitioner and death of victim on
10.05.2024 was within two years of marriage i.e. on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
30.10.2022. It was submitted, fact that none from accused
family had informed complainant's family immediately after
incident, same would aggravate petitioner's claim. On above
grounds, sought for rejection of bail.
8. Heard learned counsel.
9. Point that would arises for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail on conditions?"
10. This petition is for anticipatory bail is by accused
no.2 - mother-in-law of victim, who died by hanging within two
years of marriage at her matrimonial home on 10.05.2024.
Complaint averments specifically alleged harassment with
demand for dowry from date of marriage till date of incident. In
complaint, complainant has specifically stated that petitioner
was residing in same house. It is also seen offences alleged
against accused includes Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner has been
absconding since date of incident and prosecution has
proceeded with split-up charge-sheet. Though, expansive
grounds about complaint averments being vague, arraignment
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
was with vengeance are urged, this would not be appropriate
stage for consideration of same.
11. Insofar as contention about discrepancy in
complaint about spot of incident, bare perusal of complaint
would indicate that complainant had stated about seeing body
of his daughter on ground and not ground floor. Therefore,
contention would be ill-founded. Even contention based on
contents of Shadinama would not be acceptable as payment of
Meher is by custom. Though charge-sheet is filed after
conclusion of investigation insofar as other accused, same
cannot be pleaded in case of petitioner due to splitting up of
charge-sheet.
12. High Court of Delhi in case of Sushma v. State
(NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6750 has
held as follows under similar circumstances:
"10. The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant along with her
husband was residing on the first floor of the
house while the rest of the family including
the deceased resided on the second floor of
the house.
11. He submits that the applicant, being a senior
citizen aged 60 years, is suffering from
various old age diseases including acute
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
arthritis in her knees. He submits that it is
very difficult for her to climb stairs to the
second floor of the house and had no
concern in the day today personal affairs of
the deceased and his son.
12. He submits that the sister-in-law and brother-
in-law of the victim have already been
granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Trial
Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 wherein it
was noted that no specific allegations of
demand of dowry or causing harassment to
the deceased had been levelled against
them.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State vehemently opposes the grant of
any relief to the applicant. He submits that
specific allegations have been levelled
against the applicant whereby he cannot
claim parity with the co-accused persons who
have been granted pre-arrest bail.
14. He submits that the PCR call regarding the
death of the victim was made by her friend
who had informed that the victim had died
an unnatural death. He submits that the
accused persons made no attempt to
intimate the police authority on their own.
15. The considerations governing the grant of
pre-arrest bail are materially different than
those to be considered while adjudicating
application for grant of regular bail, as in the
latter case, the accused is already under
arrest and substantial investigation has been
carried out by the investigating agency.
16. It is trite law that the power to grant a pre-
arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is
extraordinary in nature and is to be
exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail
cannot be granted in a routine manner. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
Hon'ble Apex Court, adverting to its previous
precedents, has discussed the parameters to
be considered while considering pre-arrest
bail applications, in the case of State of
A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC
104, has held as under:
"8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court
has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of
Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985
SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] :
(SCC p. 600, para 5)
"5. Relevant considerations
governing the court's decision in
granting anticipatory bail under
Section 438 are materially
different from those when an
application for bail by a person
who is arrested in the course of
investigation as also by a person
who is convicted and his appeal is
pending before the higher court
and bail is sought during the
pendency of the appeal."
9. Similar observations have been
made by us in a recent judgment
in State v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC
187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 : JT (1997)
7 SC 651] : (SCC pp. 189-90, para 8)
"The consideration which should
weigh with the Court while
dealing with a request for
anticipatory bail need not be the
same as for an application to
release on bail after arrest."
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. We are strongly of the opinion that
this is not a case for exercising the
discretion under Section 438 in favour
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
of granting anticipatory bail to the
respondents. It is disquieting that
implications of arming the respondents,
when they are pitted against this sort
of allegations involving well-
orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-
arrest bail order, though subject to
some conditions, have not been taken
into account by the learned Single
Judge. We have absolutely no doubt
that if the respondents are equipped
with such an order before they are
interrogated by the police it would
greatly harm the investigation and
would impede the prospects of
unearthing all the ramifications
involved in the conspiracy. Public
interest also would suffer as a
consequence. Having apprised himself
of the nature and seriousness of the
criminal conspiracy and the adverse
impact of it on "the career of millions of
students", learned Single Judge should
not have persuaded himself to exercise
the discretion which Parliament had
very thoughtfully conferred on the
Sessions Judges and the High Courts
through Section 438 of the Code, by
favouring the respondents with such a
pre-arrest bail order."
17. This Court, while dismissing the bail
application of the applicant's husband, who is
a co-accused in the present case, observed
that the victim died under unnatural
circumstances within three years of her
marriage to the applicant's son. This fact
raises a statutory presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. Furthermore, the applicant has been
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
specifically accused of harassing the
deceased soon after her marriage, allegedly
in connection with dowry demands, which
eventually led to her tragic death.
18. This Court relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Samunder Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, (1987) 1 SCC 466, wherein it was
held that in cases involving dowry death, the
High Court should exercise caution and
refrain from granting pre-arrest bail, given
the gravity and seriousness of such offences.
19. It was further noted by this Court that,
although there was a delay in the statement
regarding the cruelty inflicted upon the
deceased, such delay cannot, at this stage,
be considered detrimental to the
prosecution's case. The merit of this aspect
will be evaluated during the trial, and it does
not warrant the granting of pre-arrest bail at
this juncture.
20. It cannot be held, at this stage, that the
investigation is being carried out with the
intention to injure or humiliate the
applicants. The nature and the gravity of the
allegations are serious. It is settled law that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation oriented than questioning a
suspect who is well ensconced with a
favourable order under Section 438 of
the CrPC [Ref. State v. Anil Sharma, (1997)
7 SCC 187].
21. The investigating agency needs to be given a
fair play in the joints to investigate the
matter in the manner they feel appropriate.
22. The relief of pre-arrest bail is a legal
safeguard intended to protect individuals
from potential misuse of power of arrest. It
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
plays a crucial tool in preventing harassment
and unjust detention of innocent persons.
However, the court must carefully balance
the individual's right to liberty with the
interests of justice. While the presumption of
innocence and the right to liberty are
fundamental principles of law, they must be
considered in conjunction with the gravity of
the offence, its societal impact, and the need
for a comprehensive and unobstructed
investigation.
23. While the benefit of proviso to Section 437 of
the CrPC, which allows for leniency in
granting bail to a woman, sick, or infirm, is
recognized under certain circumstances, this
benefit cannot be extended at the stage of
pre-arrest bail. The applicant is accused of
having a role similar to that of her
husband/co-accused, whose pre-arrest bail
has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
24. Even otherwise, the protection under
Section 437 of the CrPC is not absolute and
is subject to the nature and gravity of the
offence. In this case, where the applicant is
alleged to be directly involved in the
incessant demands of dowry and harassment
of the deceased, the mere fact of being an
elderly woman or infirm does not
automatically entitle her to pre-arrest bail.
The allegations must be scrutinized based on
the merits of the case, and the severity of
the crime takes precedence over any
personal exemptions under Section 437 of
the CrPC.
25. In view of the above, in the present
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that custodial interrogation of the applicants
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1981
ought not to be denied to the investigating
authority.
26. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that the applicant has
not made out a prima facie case for grant of
pre-arrest bail.
27. The present application is accordingly
dismissed."
13. In view of above circumstances and as petitioner
would be required for custodial interrogation, There are no
good grounds to allow petition. Hence, point for consideration is
answered in negative.
Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
CT:PA
