Karnataka HC grants bail to CID DySP | Court cites lack of proximate instigation in suicide case | Psychological autopsy reveals victim faced entrapment and distress, not direct abetment
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail in Crime No. 338/2024. The Court found that the investigation was complete, the draft charge sheet had been prepared, and there was no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice. The Court granted bail subject to specified conditions, observing that the petitioner's prayer deserved to be accepted, considering the facts and the proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS, 2023.
The petitioner, serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bengaluru, faced allegations arising from Crime No. 338/2024 registered by Banashankari Police Station. The offences invoked were punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 108 of the BNSS, 2023.
The First Information Report was based on a complaint filed by Sangeetha S., the sister of deceased Jeeva S., who alleged harassment and torture by the petitioner during interrogation. The deceased, accused in Crime No. 56/2023 relating to alleged misappropriation of funds from the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation, had reportedly transferred over ₹10 crores to her personal account. Following her interrogation, Jeeva S. committed suicide on 22.11.2024, leaving behind a death note implicating the petitioner.
The petitioner had earlier approached the Sessions Court for bail, but the application was rejected on 28.03.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition before the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the materials on record did not make out a prima facie case under Section 108 of BNSS, 2023. It was pointed out that the death note did not mention any demand for a bribe, and that accusations against the petitioner were improvements made by the de facto complainant. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that she was a married woman, a serving police officer, and that her custodial interrogation was no longer necessary as the investigation was concluded.
In opposition, the State's counsel and counsel for the de facto complainant contended that the deceased had been harassed under the pretext of interrogation, resulting in her suicide. It was alleged that there were chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Further, the respondents submitted that eight departmental enquiries were pending against the petitioner and that she was implicated in two other criminal cases.
The Court considered the psychological autopsy report of the deceased, which suggested that feelings of entrapment, hopelessness, and perceived threats to personal dignity contributed to the suicide. Additionally, the draft charge sheet filed in compliance with previous Court orders revealed that the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were dropped and that proceedings would continue solely under Section 108 of BNSS, 2023.
The Court took note of earlier proceedings where the deceased had approached the High Court, resulting in orders directing that interrogations be videographed. Despite allegations of halted recordings, the Court found no concrete evidence of direct instigation or abetment.
“The material on record would go to show that deceased was harassed and ill-treated by the petitioner under the guise of interrogating her.”
The Court acknowledged the allegations made but evaluated the evidence available critically.
“Perusal of the draft charge sheet would go to show that the alleged offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been dropped against the petitioner and charge sheet is now prepared only for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.”
The Court recorded that the investigation had concluded and the draft charge sheet excluded charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.“There is no such material available in the said transcription of conversation which can be considered as an instigation or abetment for the deceased to commit suicide.”
Upon review of the videographed interrogations, the Court found no direct evidence of instigation or abetment.“Psychological autopsy report suggests deceased was concerned about her sister getting embroiled in the Bhovi Development Corporation case.”
The Court noted the deceased’s mental condition, based on the psychological report presented.
“Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and also having regard to the Proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS, 2023, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.”
Based on the culmination of the investigation, the evidence available, and the relevant legal provisions, the Court justified the grant of bail.
The High Court allowed the criminal petition and passed the following order:
“The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.338/2024 registered by Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 108 of BNS, 2023.”
The Court directed that the petitioner execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner was directed to appear regularly on all dates of hearing unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
Further, the petitioner was ordered not to threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. She was also restrained from involving herself in similar offences in the future.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, Senior Counsel for Sri Surya Mukundaraj L., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Vijayakumar Majege, Additional State Public Prosecutor; Sri Aravind Kamath P., Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Kanaka Lakshmi B.M vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:16581
Case Number: CRL.P No. 4873 of 2025
Bench: Justice S Vishwajith Shetty
[Read/Download order]
