(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed u/S 439 of Cr.PC (filed u/S 483 BNNS) praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.129/2026 of HSR Layout Police Station for the offences p/u/S 80(2), 85, r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 pending before the 39th Addl.CMM at Bangalore.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed by the father-in-law of the victim, aged about 71 years arraigned as accused No.2 in crime No.129/2026 for the offences punishable under Section 80(2), 85 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (herein referred to as ' BNS Act' for short) registered before HSR Layout, police.

2. A complaint dated 27.03.2026 has been filed by one Smt. Shantamma, mother of the victim, alleging that the victim was earlier married to one Rajesh in the year 2016 and she had obtained divorce and thereafter her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 i.e., Venkatesh Reddy on 18.11.2024. It is further alleged that accused No.1 i.e., the husband of the victim and accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in- law respectively had subjected her to mental harassment, insisting for dowry. It is also alleged that a child was born out of the marriage between the victim and the accused No.1 which had led to further demand for payment of money and gold and all the ceremonies after the birth of the child was performed by the parents of the victim. It is further alleged that three days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel at the instance of accused No.3-mother-in-law, on account of accused No.1, having brought a normal saree instead of a silk saree which had caused stress to the victim and the victim had shared this incident with her sister. She had also expressed that she was finding it difficult to live with the accused persons. It is also alleged that on 27.03.2026, the victim had made a video call to her brother at 09.00 a.m. as usual and she found to be happy. Then about 11.00 a.m., the complainant received a call from accused No.2 asking her to come immediately to their house. When they reached the house, they were informed about the victim having locked up herself in a room and refusing to open the door. That in their presence accused No.1, they broke open the door of the room by a hammer and found victim being hung from a ceiling fan which had led to the suspicion regarding her death. Accordingly, the complaint was filed and the case in crime No.129/2026 is registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Section 80(2), 85 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that the petitioner herein is aged 71 years and is suffering from ailment and he is innocent. No prima facie case is made against him linking the unfortunate death of the victim to any of his conduct. He specifically points out to unnumbered paragraph 1 of page No.13 of the complaint and unnumbered paragraph 2 of the said page and submit that both the contents of the said paragraphs are contrary to each other.

4. He also submits that even if the said averments are taken on the face value, the same would reveal the dispute and the quarrel with regard to accused No.1 bringing normal saree to the accused No.3 and there was no role of victim in buying the said saree. The said allegation cannot be extended and expanded to involve and implicate the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 80(2), 85 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS Act, as sought to be made by the prosecution. Hence he seeks for grant of bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submits that serious allegation of demand for dowry is made in the complaint and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, seeks for rejection of bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the records.

7. Though there are allegations of victim being subjected to harassment by the accused persons made in the first part of the complaint, no specific allegations are made as such, except making general allegation of father- in-law and mother-in-law subjecting her to the harassment. Further, unnumbered paragraph No.1 of page 3 of the complaint, (para No.13 of the petition paper) indicate that three days prior to the incident was on account of accused No.1 bringing normal saree to the victim. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for petitioner, nothing can be made out from the said allegation regarding petitioner herein subjecting victim to any harassment. The unnumbered paragraph No.1 of the complaint at page No.13, as rightly pointed out by counsel of the petitioner indicate that the victim at 09.00 a.m. on 27.03.2026 had made a video call to her brother and was found to be happy.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Patil Babubhai by Manohar Das and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 INSC 322, reported in 2025 SCC online SC 503 at paragraph Nos.20, to 25 has held as under:

          "20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal is a case where this Court held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in case of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana.

          21. After considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, this Court in Rajesh versus State of Haryana held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.

          22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

          23. This Court in Amudha versus State held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

          24. Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka, this Court observed that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society. Commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

          25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra is a case where this Court after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal position in the following manner:

          14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

          25.1. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P. and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours between using of abusive language by the accused and the commission of suicide would not amount to a proximate act."

9. The facts of the case and the allegation made in the complaint, read in the light of the aforesaid position of law do not make out prima-facie case as against the petitioner herein. Further, considering the age and the health condition of the petitioner as seen in the medical records furnished in the petition, which indicate that he is suffering from medical ailment, this Court under circumstances, finds it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

          1. Criminal Petition is allowed.

          2. The accused/petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.129/2026 registered by the HSR Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 80(2), 85 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

          a) Accused No.2-petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

          b) Accused No.2-petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

          c) Accused No.2-petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

          d) Accused No.2-petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

          f) Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned prison authorities forthwith.