Facts
The petitioners, Accused Nos. 3 and 5 in Crime No. 61/2026, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered by Cubbon Park Police for offences under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Source reference: p. 3The complaint alleged that Accused No. 5 had quarrelled with the deceased, Suresh Kumar Purohit, in Rajasthan and later instigated others to assault him in Bengaluru on the night of 2–3 April 2026; the deceased died by suicide later that day
Source reference: pp. 3–4The FIR was registered on 22 April 2026, nearly three weeks after the death
Source reference: p. 4The Sessions Court rejected the petitioners’ bail application on 2 September 2026
Source reference: p. 3The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed by the time this petition was considered
Source reference: p. 5Issues
Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 61/2026
Source reference: pp. 3, 5Whether anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions in light of the allegations, the circumstances of the deceased’s death, and the completed investigation
Source reference: pp. 4–6Law Applied
The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision invoked for anticipatory bail
Source reference: p. 2The alleged offences were under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS
Source reference: pp. 2–3The Court also referred to its earlier order in Crl.P. No. 6899/2026, which had observed that the absence of injuries suggesting a brutal assault, and an alleged assault with hands and legs following a quarrel, did not by themselves provide a sufficient reason for a prudent person to commit suicide
Source reference: p. 5The order does not set out a separate general test for anticipatory bail.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court considered the alleged prior quarrel and threat, the subsequent alleged assault, and the fact that the deceased died by suicide on the same date
Source reference: pp. 3–4It noted the delay of nearly three weeks in registering the FIR
Source reference: p. 4It relied on its earlier assessment of the medical and surrounding circumstances, including the absence of injuries indicating a brutal assault
Source reference: p. 5As the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted, subject to conditions
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 61/2026
Each petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties (one local), attend the Trial Court unless exempted, cooperate with the police, refrain from tampering with witnesses, and not commit similar offences in future
Source reference: pp. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234
Original Court PDF
SRI. NITHESHKUMAR,vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
