Karnataka High Court
Siddu Alias Sidrameshwar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101649 OF 2025
(439 OF Cr.PC/483 OP BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SIDDU @ SIDRAMESHWAR,
S/O. VIGNESH MALLIGWAD,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. HOSAKATTI VILLAGE, KUNDGOL TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KUNDGOL POLICE STATION, KUNDGOL,
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (483
Dharwad Bench
OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.5094/2024, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI WHEREIN CHARGE SHEET IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.329(4), 75, 352,
108 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, AGAINST THIS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED, ARISING OUT OF KUNDGOL P.S. CRIME
NO.86/2024 AND FIR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S.103, 238, 49, 329(4), 75, 3(5) OF BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhita,
2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in Crime No.86/2024 for
the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 49,
329(4), 75, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Naya Samhita (BNS).
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
On 30.07.2024, the first informant lodged a missing
complaint alleging that in his house, he, his mother
Kashavva, wife Manjula and three children were staying.
On 29.07.2024 at 6.00 p.m., the first informant left the
house to attend the death ceremony of a relative at
Kalaghatagi and he returned around 09:30 p.m. and his
wife was missing. Accordingly, they searched her here and
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025HC-KAR
there. Later, he came to know that as on the date, i.e., on
29.07.2024 at about 07:35 p.m., the mother of the first
informant was in the house, the accused came to the
bedroom of deceased Manjula and insisting her to have
sexual intercourse with him and also insisting her to elope
from the house by leaving the company of the first
informant. He also abused Manjula in filthy language and
abetted her to go and die. On 08.08.2024, the dead body
of Manjula was traced near the canal of Kamalapur village
and Devanur village. Therefore, the complaint was lodged
and this led to registration of FIR and investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any
offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. There
is no allegation against the petitioner to attract the alleged
offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment of life and the petitioner is ready to
abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court. With these grounds, the learned counsel for the
petitioner prayed to allow the petition.
5. Learned HCGP for the respondent – State
contended that there is prima facie case against the
petitioner. The offences are non-bailable in nature. If he is
enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution
witnesses and hamper the trial. Thus, he prayed for
rejection of the petition.
6. On perusal of the material available on record,
it appears that the first informant is none other than the
husband of deceased Manjula. On 29.07.2024 at about
07:30 p.m., the accused entered the house of first
informant, insisted the deceased Manjula to have sex with
him, as she refused to have sex with him, he insisted her
to elope with her and took her to perform her second
marriage. As the deceased Manjula denied his proposal, he
also abused her in filthy language and intentionally
insulted her, provoked her by saying that ‘go and die else
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
where’. As per the statement of CW9, Smt. Kashavva, the
mother of the first informant and mother-in-law of
deceased, who has stated before the learned Magistrate
while recording her statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. (Section 184(5) of BNSS), that the accused
entered the house and that he was sleeping underneath
the cot. But she has not stated before the Magistrate
alleging that the accused abetted the deceased Manjula to
commit suicide and she has not stated that the accused
insulted her and abused the deceased by saying that ‘go
and die elsewhere’.
7. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there
is no nexus and proximity with conduct of the petitioner
with that of suicide committed by the deceased.
Admittedly, in order to attract Section 306 of IPC, there
has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
required an active act or direct act which lead deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that she committed suicide.
8. In the case of Kanchan Sharma vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2021 SCC
Online SC 737 at Para No.15, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held as under:
“‘Abetment’ involves mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, no one can be convicted for
offence under Section 306, IPC.”
9. In the facts and circumstances of the above
case, the Court finds that abatement as is necessary for
the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Whereas, in the
instant case, as per the contents of FIR and Complaint, at
this stage there is no prima facie case for an offence under
Section 306 of IPC against the accused.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. Admittedly, investigation is completed and the
Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet. If the bail
is granted to the petitioner, the question of tampering the
prosecution witnesses would not arise.
11. Considering the nature of offences, gravity of
offences and the antecedent character of the petitioner,
the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail
on he executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the trial Court.iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court
regularly.
iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7478
CRL.P No. 101649 of 2025HC-KAR
v. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any
such offences in future.
Violation of any of the above conditions, will entitle the
prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
NOTE: The above observation are made, only for the
purpose of disposal of this petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGERSH /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17