Sri. Imran vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 965 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Imran vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:7101
                                                        CRL.P No. 16470 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16470 OF 2025
                                     (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SRI. IMRAN
                           S/O NAZEER AHMED,
                           AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                           WELDER,
                           R/O KATTEGADDE MASJID,
                           KOODUVALLI POST,
                           VASTHARA HOBLI,
                           CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 101.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. K S GANESHA.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by        BY ALDUR POLICE,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI            CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH             REPRESENTED BY SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           BENGALURU.560001.

                      2.   SRI.SYED JAVEED,
                           S/O LATE SYED YUSUF,
                           AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                           BUSINESS, R/O BANTENAHALLI
                           VILLAGE, BELUR HOBLI,
                           HASSAN DISTRICT 577 101.
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY Smt.WAHEEDA M M, HCGP)
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:7101
                                  CRL.P No. 16470 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.495/2025 OF ALDUR POLICE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 85, 80, 108 READ WITH 3(5) OF BNS 2023
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                     ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying

to grant bail in Crime No.84/2025 of Aldur Police Station

registered for offences punishable under Sections 85, 80,

108 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1/State.

NC: 2026:KHC:7101

HC-KAR

3. The respondent No.2 though served with notice

remained absent and unrepresented.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner would

contend that an earlier complaint was filed contending that

the murder of the deceased has taken place. It was

subsequently found that the deceased had committed

suicide. The said fact of filing a complaint for murder

indicates the intention of the complainant and family

members to take revenge against the petitioner. The

deceased was insisting to have a separate rented house.

The said request was not complied with by the petitioner.

The deceased was also insisting that he wanted to go out

of the house for work and the family members were not

allowed him to go out of the house for work. The other

allegation is that the financial assistance has been taken

by the accused for purchase of the site. The said aspect

does not amount to demand of dowry. Except the family

members, there are no other persons who have stated

regarding the harassment by the accused to the deceased.

NC: 2026:KHC:7101

HC-KAR

The deceased was sensitive. As her requests were not

considered, she might have committed suicide. As the

charge sheet is filed, petitioner is not required for custodial

interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the

petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1/State would contend that the

statements of CWs.1, 9 and 10 have been recorded under

Section 183 of BNSS, wherein they have specifically stated

the harassments given by the petitioner to his

wife/deceased Simran. Similarly, the charge sheet

materials show a prima case against the petitioner for

offence alleged against him. The death has taken place

within seven years of marriage. With this, she prayed to

reject the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed

on record.

NC: 2026:KHC:7101

HC-KAR

7. The column-17 of the charge sheet indicates

that the deceased was insisting the petitioner/accused

No.1 to have a separate rented house, and as it was not

done, she was upset and went to her parents' house. After

deceased was brought back, she was insisting to go for

work and her husband not allowed her for the same and

he told her to go and die. The deceased committed suicide

and did not leave behind any suicide note. Whether the

suicide was abetted by the petitioner is a matter to be

decided at trial. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner

is not required for custodial interrogation. The offence

alleged against the petitioner is not either with death or

imprisonment for life. There are no criminal antecedents of

the petitioner.

8. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner

has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following: