The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of grave allegations when the accused has no criminal antecedents, is not required for further investigation, and has compelling personal circumstances including primary caregiving responsibilities for a young child.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri R. Shailesh Kumar, is accused in connection with the suicide of his wife, who died within seven years of their marriage on 21 November 2021. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with his parents and in-laws (accused Nos. 2 to 4), subjected the deceased to mental and physical harassment due to suspicion of her fidelity and demands for dowry. However, the complaint and charge sheet reveal a critical distinction: while the co-accused are alleged to have demanded dowry, no such allegation is made against the petitioner himself.
Procedural History
- 21 November 2021: Marriage between petitioner and deceased
- 2025: Deceased found dead; FIR registered under Sections 80(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- 5 October 2025: Petitioner taken into judicial custody
- Prior to petition: Accused Nos. 2 to 4 granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Court
- Petition filed: 2025 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC)
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on grounds that he is not required for further investigation, has no criminal record, is employed as a software engineer, and is the primary caregiver for his two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, who resides with him and his parents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under Section 483 BNSS when the accused is not alleged to have demanded dowry, has no criminal antecedents, is not needed for custodial interrogation, and has compelling family responsibilities, especially where co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the charge sheet does not contain any allegation of dowry demand against him, unlike the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail. He emphasized that the deceased’s suicide was not attributed to his direct actions, and no neighbor’s statement corroborated harassment. He further submitted that the child’s welfare necessitates his continued care, and his professional status and lack of prior record make him a low flight risk.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the deceased’s death within seven years of marriage, coupled with allegations of mental and physical harassment, prima facie established offences under BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act. It argued that the gravity of the offence and the potential for witness tampering warranted continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the charge sheet and complaint, distinguishing between allegations against the petitioner and those against co-accused. It noted that while the complaint initially alleged murder, the charge sheet did not invoke Section 103 of BNS, indicating the prosecution’s own view that the death was a suicide.
"There is no allegation against this petitioner demanding dowry. The accused Nos.2 to 4 against whom demand of dowry is alleged have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court."
The Court held that the absence of dowry demand against the petitioner, combined with the fact that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary after the filing of the charge sheet, rendered continued detention unjustified. It further emphasized that the petitioner’s role as the sole caregiver for a young child, coupled with his stable employment and clean record, weighed heavily in favor of bail.
The Court also observed that the denial of bail in such circumstances would violate the principle of proportionality and the right to personal liberty under Article 21, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and poses no threat to the investigation.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that bail must be granted where no dowry demand is alleged against the accused, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and compelling family responsibilities exist, even in cases involving suicide under Section 80(2) BNS. The petitioner was released on bail subject to conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Dowry Allegation = Strong Bail Ground
- Practitioners must highlight distinctions between allegations against co-accused and the petitioner
- Absence of dowry demand against a specific accused, even in a dowry death case, significantly weakens the State’s opposition to bail
- Courts are likely to view such distinctions as material under Article 21
Caregiver Status Overrides Presumption of Danger
- Primary caregiving for a minor child, especially where no alternative caregiver is available, is now a recognized factor in bail decisions
- Courts must weigh the child’s welfare against the State’s interest in custody
- This applies even in serious cases under BNS or DP Act
Charge Sheet Filing Ends Custodial Necessity
- Once the charge sheet is filed, the presumption that custodial interrogation is essential is rebutted
- Petitioners should cite this judgment to argue against prolonged pre-trial detention in non-complex cases
- Courts must assess necessity of custody post-charge sheet, not merely on the nature of the offence
