Abhijith Patavardhan & anr. vs State of Karnataka

Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they

are taken together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of discussion of law and facts.

Crl.P.No.136/2018 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.P.No.135/2018 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail and anticipatory bail respectively, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w

Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.88/2017.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant''s son one Mr.Vinay Kumar completed his Bachelor of Engineering degree and he was

carrying on construction of a house in chitradurga. On 15.11.2017, at around 9.00 p.m. when the complainant called Mr.Vinay, he did not receive

the call and the family members of Mr.Vinay enquired the whereabouts of Mr.Vinay with his friends. They also informed that he has not received

their call. Since Mr.Vinay is residing in a different house at Municipal colony, Chitradurga, the family members immediately requested one

Mr.Manohar to rush to the deceased''s house to find out the whereabouts of the deceased. When Mr.Manohar reached the house of the deceased

and when he broke the glass of the window he saw that he was hanging from the roof using a Saree. They immediately broke open the door and

took him to the hospital and there they were informed that he is no more. It is also mentioned in the complaint that when they checked the pant of

the deceased, there was a letter and in the said letter it was mentioned that the owners of the house which he had taken up for construction i.e.,

Mr.Abhijit Patavardhan, Mr.Abhishek Patavardhan, Abhinetri Patavardhan and Manjula Patavardhan, used to harass him with respect to financial

transaction and due to that he has committed suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the alleged offence.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of both petitions, so also, the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that as per the prosecution material there is no prima facie case

as against any of the petitioners to attract the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. They never abetted the commission of suicide by the

deceased. Only contract work of construction was given to him. They never gave such ill-treatment as alleged in the complaint. Hence, it is

submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners in both the petitions may be admitted to regular as well as anticipatory bail

respectively.

Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there is a death note left by the deceased

which was recovered on the very day of the incident by the police. In the death note, the names of these four petitioners is clearly mentioned

regarding the illtreatment and harassment given by them to the deceased, which prima facie shows that petitioners abetted the commission of the

suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that the matter is till under investigation and hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail at this

stage.

I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

No doubt, in the materials placed on record the prosecution has relied upon the death note said to have been left by deceased Vinay wherein

the allegations are made against the petitioners herein that in connection with the construction of the said house and also with regard to the financial

matter, petitioners herein gave ill-treatment and harassment to him. Even it is stated that they have assaulted him. But these allegations are denied

by the petitioners herein stating that they are false to implicate them in this case. As submitted by the learned Government Pleader the matter is still

under investigation and the Investigating Officer has to collect the material and file final report in the case. However, since the petitioners in

Crl.P.No.135/2018 are women and accused No.4 is aged 57 years, which fact is not disputed by the prosecution and also since accused No.3 is

said to be studying LLM and it is submitted that due to this incident she cannot appear for the examinations, considering these aspects of the

matter, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crl.P.No.135/2018 could be considered for grant of

anticipatory bail. So far as petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.136/2018 are concerned, for the present, the petition is disposed of with

liberty to them to approach the concerned Court immediately after completion of investigation and filing of final report.

Accordingly, petition in Crl.P.No.136/2018 is rejected and petition in Crl.P.No.135/2018 is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to

enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34

of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.88/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety

bond.