[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anirban Chakraborty vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.238 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.238 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. ANIRBAN CHAKRABORTY,
S/O ALOK CHAKRABORTY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2216, 2ND CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
RAGHUVANAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560109.
2. ALOK CHAKRABORTY
S/O PARIMALENDU CHAKRABORTY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO. 2216, 2ND CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
RAGHUVANAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560109
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
KIRANALAYA, CODEBDAS BABDY,
OPADHYAY, PREMBAZAR HIJLI,
CO-OP SOCIETY, KHARAGPUR (M)
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL - 721306.
3. SMT. KABITA
W/O ALOK CHAKRABORTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2216, 2ND CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
RAGHUVANAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560109
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
-2-
CRL.A No.238 of 2026
KIRANALAYA, CO-OP SOCIETY PREMBAZAR,
KHARAGPUR (M), HIJLI,
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL - 721306.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 572 201
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560109.
2. PRASAD MONDAL
FATHERS NAME
NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS,
VIMALA NILAYA,
PERAMBRA POST, PERAMPORA
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE CITY,
KERALA - 680689.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2026
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.17/2026 AND GRANT THEM ANTICIPATORY BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.457/2025 OF
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
103(1),80,85,123 AND 61(2) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND
SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
-3-
CRL.A No.238 of 2026
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order
dated 31st January, 2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.17 of 2026 by
the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of the complaint filed by one Prasad Mondal,
Talaghattapura Police have registered the case in Crime
No.457/2025 against accused 1 to 3 for the commission of
offence under Section 103(1), 80, 85, 123, 61(2) read with
Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA)
Act'.
3. The appellants have filed application under Section
482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail and same
came to be rejected by the II Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District by the order impugned. Being
aggrieved by this order, the appellants have preferred this
appeal.
4. Sri. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara, counsel for
the appellants, would submit that the appellants are innocent of
offence alleged. They have been implicated in the crime for
extraneous reasons, misusing the social beneficial legislation,
without any wrong or offence committed by any of them. There
are no reasonable grounds to believe that appellants are guilty
of the alleged offences, as none of the ingredients of the
alleged offences are attracted. It is well settled that the
criminal proceedings is not for vindication of private defence,
but for prosecuting the offender in the interest of the society. It
is for maintaining orderliness in the society, certain acts are
constituted, and hence right is given to the citizens to set
criminal law into motion. Still, the respondent no.2 herein
chooses to initiate criminal proceedings for obvious reasons,
which is a clear case of abuse of process of law. Respondent
no.2 filed the present case, which is not honest and is malafide.
Further, he would submit that, bare reading of the complaint
itself shows that, complaint has been obtained by the
respondent police to suit their case. There is no specific overt
act against each of the accused. The allegations are general in
nature. There is no place or a specific word alleged to have
been abused by any of the accused forthcoming in the
complaint. By any stretch of imagination the same is not in a
public view and at a public place. The respondent police,
without verifying the truth or otherwise of the fact, registered
the complaint. The marriage of the appellant no.1 and Smt.
Shooli Mondol (now deceased) took place on 12.08.2021.
Couple is blessed with a boy baby which is now aged about two
and a half years, who is within the custody of the appellants.
Smt. Shooli Mondol (now deceased) having studied BAMS
became an Ayurvedic doctor. She herself knew her health
conditions better than others. The appellant no.1 is a B.Tech
graduate and joined a good company and getting good salary.
At no point of time, either the appellant no.1 or his parents
demanded or accepted dowry either from his wife or from her
parents. Deceased died because of sudden health problems.
Allegation of the said demand/acceptance of dowry is imaginary
and is glorified for the purpose of the case. Further, he would
submit that since Smt. Shooli Mondol complained of severe
headache on 19.12.2025. Appellant No.1 took her to Manipal
Hospital, where treatment was given and she was advised to go
for certain tests. However, she refused to go for such tests and
discarded that request which shows that if she had followed up
treatment, this unfortunate incident would not have happened.
Now the respondent no.1-police without verifying the truth or
otherwise, at the instance of the parents of Smt. Shooli Mondol,
have registered this case. He would submit that the learned
Sessions Judge, dismissed the bail application without
considering the medical records though produced, and the
same is liable to be set aside. Further, he would submit that
since the offences for which case has been registered are an
non-bailable offence and the respondent no.1-Police are making
acute attempts to arrest the appellants, and in the event of
their arrest they would be subjected to torture, humiliation and
disgrace in the public and the same will come in the way of
service career of appellant no.1 who is working for a company
and will take toll on the health conditions of appellants 2 and 3.
Further, the police are often visiting the houses of the
appellants and their relatives and making enquiries and
threatening them to produce the appellants or to face the
consequences. Though no prima facie case made out by the
prosecution, the Learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition.
The appellants 2 and 3 respectively, are aged 66 and 62 years.
Appellant No.3 is a woman and hail from respectable family.
They are permanent residents of West Bengal at the addres
shown in the cause-title. The appellant no.1 was looking after
his wife well and they were cordial with each other. Appellants
2 and 3 were residents of West Bengal. They often visiting to
see their son and grandchild. The Learned Sessions Judge had
wrongly rejected the petition filed by the appellants, which is
prejudiced to the case of the appellants. On all the grounds
sought to allow the application. The medical records of the
deceased is also produced with a memo. To substantiate his
arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the
following judgments:
1. SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM v. STATE OF UP AND
OTHERS rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2344 of
2023 decided on 08.08.2023;
2. MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA - (2014)9
SCC 645;
3. SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - (2011)1 SCC
694; and
4. CHARAN SINGH @ CHARANJIT SINGH v. STATE
OF UTTARKHAND - (2024)13 SCC 649.
5. Respondent no.2 appeared through his counsel and
filed written objection. He sought for dismissal of the criminal
appeal. Along with the statement of objection, the copy of the
post mortem report of the deceased Shooli Mondol is also
produced. The learned counsel has reiterated the averments
made in the statement of objection. He has specifically
submitted that the present appeal for anticipatory bail is hit by
the absolute statutory bar contained in Section 18 and 18A of
the Act. These provisions explicitly exclude the application of
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
reflecting the Parliament's intent to protect victims of
systematic caste-based violence from the threat of intimidation
and subversion of justice. In the present case, there are prima
facie materials to attract the alleged commission of offence.
Hence there is bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA)
Amendment Act, 2015. Appellants 2 and 3 left for Kolkota on
18.12.2025 immediately prior to the death which is a highly
suspicious circumstance. Section 118 of the Bharatiya
Suraksha Adhiniyama is clearly attracted and operates against
the appellants. On all these grounds it is sought for dismissal
of appeal. To substantiate, the learned Counsel has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
1. KIRAN v. RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN AND ANOTHER
- (2025) SCC ONLINE SC 1886;
2. OM PRAKASH V. STATE OF PUNJAB - 1961 SCC
ONLINE SC 72;
3. DEVENDER SINGH V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND -
(2022) 13 SCC 82;
4. MAYA DEVI V. STATE OF HARYANA - (2015)17
SCC 405; AND
5. BANSILAL V. STATE OF HARYANA - (2011)11 SCC
359.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of records, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the appellants have made out a
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as sought
for?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have examined the material placed before this
court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Prasad Mondol,
Talaghattapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.457
of 2025 against accused 1 to 3 for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 80, 85, 123, 61(2) read with
3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/St (PoA) Act. In
the complaint, it is stated as under:
- 10 -
"Respected Sir,
I, the undersigned Complainant, am the father of the
deceased, Mrs. Shooly Mondol.
I am filing this formal complaint to bring to your
immediate attention a heinous crime committed against
my daughter, resulting in her suspicious and unnatural
death between the intervening night of 19th and 20th
December 2025, within the jurisdiction of your police
station.
1. My daughter, Shooly Mondol, was married to the
Accused No. 1, Mr. Anirban Chakraborty, on August 12,
2021. Since the inception of the marriage, the
matrimonial home became a site of continuous torture,
on account of the fact that the deceased victim belonged
to a "low-caste" while her husband was from a "highlaste
Throughout the marriage, the parents-in-law (Accused
No.2, and persistently harassed and tortured the victim
on caste grounds. She was subjected to inhumane
treatment and practiced untouchabilty; specifically, she
was not allowed to eat at the same table as the family
and was forbidden from drinking water from the same
vessels used by the accused. This conduct was intended
to humiliate her and constitutes an offense under the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The accused persons (Husband and In-laws)
frequently demanded money and gold as dowry, wherein
the deceased parents had given 236 gms of gold and Rs.
4,00,000/- as dowry, which constitutes an unlawful
demand under Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023. When these demands were not
- 11 -
met, they subjected Shooly to cruelty as defined under
Section 86 BNS. This involved willful conduct likely to
cause grave injury to her health (mental and physical).
She was often denied food, verbally abused physically
assaulted, and confined to her room.
3. On 19.12.2025 (Friday), the victim complained of
stomach ache, vomiting, any dizziness. The husband
took her to the hospital but, suspiciously, got her
discharged without completing all necessary medical
tests and brought her back to the residence. On
20.12.2025 (Saturday), early in the morning, her
condition worsened, and she called for an ambulance.
By the time the medical response team arrived, she had
already passed away. The in-laws (accused 2 & 3) are
Pharmacists by profession and possess expert knowledge
of drug and substances. Furthermore, they suddenly left
for Kolkata on the morning of December 18, 2025. We
strongly suspect this is a case a premeditated Murder by
Poisoning (Section 103 BNS), executed using their
professional access to toxic substances.
4. On the dates of 18th and 19th December 2025, the
deceased victim was residing at her matrimonial home.
We received information via phone call today from the
Hospital that Shooly had passed away. Shooly was a
healthy individual with no history of life-threatening
ailments or cardiac issues. The suddenness of her death,
combined with the lack of any natural cause, clearly
points to an unnatural death "otherwise than under
normal circumstances" as stipulated in Section 80 BNS.
5. I have strong reasons to believe, based on the prior
conduct of the accused and the sudden nature of the
- 12 -
death, that the three accused persons-Anirban Alok, and
Kavita Chakraborty-conspired together (Section 61 BNS)
to murder my daughter. It is suspected that they
administered a poisonous stupefying or unwholesome
substance to her in her food or drink, an act punishable
under Section 123 BNS read with Section 103 BNS
(Murder). This act was done in furtherance of a
Common Intention (Section 3(5) BNS shared by all three
suspects to kill her, likely to evade the legal
consequences of their downy harassment or to facilitate
a second marriage for Accused No.1. We suspect foul
play, as the in-laws are pharmacists, and also suddenly
left for Kolkata on the morning of December 18, 2025.
6. As the death has occurred within seven years of
marriage under unnatural circumstances, and was
immediately preceded by persistent cruelty regarding
dowry demands, this constitutes Dowry Death under
Section 80 of the BNS, 2023. Under this section, the law
presumes that the husband and his relatives caused the
death.
7. I request you to register the FIR under the following
provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
• Section 103(1) Punishment for Murder.
• Section 80: Dowry Death.
• Section 85: Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.
• Section 61: Criminal Conspiracy.
• Section 3(5): Acts done by several persons in,
furtherance of common intention.
• Section 123: Causing hurt by means of poison
with intent to commit an offense.
- 13 -
• Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
8. I earnestly request you to:
• I. Register the FIR immediately as per the
mandate of Section 173 BNSS
• without delay.
• II. Take immediate custody of the body and
ensure a Video-Graphed PostMortem Examination
by a panel of doctors to ascertain the exact cause
of death.
• III. Preserve the Viscera samples and dispatch
them to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on
a priority basis to detect the nature of the
poison.
• IV. Arrest the named suspects to prevent them
from tampering with evidence
• or intimidating witnesses.
• V.Conduct a Spot Mahazar (Scene Inspection) at
the residence and seize any food items, atensils,
or potential poison containers.
I am willing to co-operate fully with the investigation."
9. The medical records of the deceased issued by
Manipal Hospital reveals that the deceased Shooli Mondol
admitted to the hospital on 19.01.2025 at 05.30 p.m with
history of sudden onset of severe headache, more in fronto
parietal region, throbbing, increases with head movements
associated with nausea, 1 episode of vomiting, greenish non-
- 14 -
bloody and projectile. The General condition was comfortable;
Pulse: normal; heart sounds: S1, S2; Abdomen: soft and non
tender; bowel sounds: normal and it was diagnosed: headache
for evaluation, intracranial pathology, migraine, sinusitis vs
other causes. Further it is noted that patient came to ED with
above-mentioned history IV analgesia, PPI, antiemetic given.
Suggested brain imaging, blood investigations, however patient
refused for the same and requested only for symptomatic care
and hence discharged at request. It is also stated that Patient
condition eventually improved with symptomatic care and upon
discharge suggested medication, paracetamol 1 gram for 3
daysT Levo Cetrizie 1 gram for 3 days; T Pan 40.mg for 3 three
days;and T Emeset and T Rizact each for three days. The
photos of the deceased and accused no.1 with child and family
photos are also produced.
10. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the
complainant has shown the name and address of the accused 2
and 3 as residents of No.2216, II Cross, Balaji Layout,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. However, in the statement of
objections filed by respondent No.2 at paragraph 13, it is
clearly stated that appellants 2 and 3 are permanent residents
of West Bengal and do not ordinarily reside within the
- 15 -
jurisdiction of this Court, which significantly indicates that they
are evading the process of law and in the event if anticipatory
bail being granted, there exists a substantial and real risk of
absconding, thereby frustrating the investigation and trial.
Therefore, admittedly, appellants 2 and 3 are residing in West
Bengal and the victim was residing with her husband accused
No.1/appellant No.1-Anirban Chakraborthy at No.2216, II
Cross, Balaji Layout, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. The plain
reading of the complaint, it is not clear as to on which date,
month or year, the appellants 2 and 3 have demanded money
and gold as dowry and that there is no allegation in the
complaint that on 19th December, 2025, appellants 2 and 3
were present. It is also not disputed that appellants 2 and 3
are aged about 66 and 62 years respectively. They are senior
citizens. There is no direct evidence against appellants 2 and 3
as to commission of alleged offence. At this stage, there are no
sufficient prima facie material to constitute the alleged offence
against appellants 2 and 3. Considering the age of the
appellants 2 and 3 and for want of direct evidence against the
appellants 2 and 3 and the nature and gravity of the offence,
prior antecedents of appellants 2 and 3, I am of the opinion
that it is just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to appellants
2 and 3 with conditions.
- 16 -
11. With regard to appellant No.1-Anirban Chakraborty
is concerned, admittedly, he is the husband of the deceased
and the investigation is not yet completed. Without
interrogation of accused No.1/appellant No.1 herein, it is
difficult to conduct fair investigation of the case. The alleged
commission of offence is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Considering the nature and gravity of
offence, at this stage, if accused No.1/appellant No.1 is
released on anticipatory bail, it will affect the society at large.
Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1, partly in the affirmative.
I the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Impugned Order 31st January, 2026 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.17 of 2026 by the II Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru passed against appellant
No.1/Accused No.1-Anirban Chakraborty is
confirmed;
- 17 -
iii) The Impugned Order passed against appellants 2
and 3 is set aside. Appeal filed by appellants 2
and 3 is allowed.
iv) Consequently, application filed under Section
482 of BNSS is allowed. Appellant No.2-Alok
Chakraborty and appellant No.3-Smt. Kabita,
shall be released on bail upon executing a self-
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer, in the event of their arrest
in Crime No.457 of 2025 of Thalaghattapura
Police Station;
iv) Appellants 2 and 3 shall assist the Investigating
Officer for investigation;
v) Appellants 2 and 3 shall not tamper or threaten
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
vi) Registry to send the copy of this order to the
concerned court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
