Asif Hussain vs State

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Petitioner is the husband of the deceased-Saritha alias Ameena. Their marriage was solemnized about seven and half years prior to 16.04.2011. It was a love marriage and was without the consent of the parents of the deceased. From out of the said wed lock deceased gave birth to a male child who is aged about 6 years as on 16.04.2011. About two years prior to 16.04.2011, Petitioner started working in a Software Company in Bangalore and he along with the deceased and the child was residing in Dharani Apartment of Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore City. Of late, there were some differences between the husband and the wife. Few days prior to 13.04.2011, Petitioner and the deceased along with the child went to Chittor. On 13.04.2011 the deceased along with her son returned to Bangalore while the Petitioner stayed back in Chittor. There were some differences between the Petitioner and the deceased as to the manner in which the child should be brought up. On 15.04.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., Geetha Devi who is the elder sister of the deceased came to the house of the deceased since the deceased who had informed her sister about visiting sister''s house in the evening, did not come nor she lifted the telephone when sister contacted. On coming near the house of the deceased said Geetha Devi saw her sister Saritha hanging; from the ceiling fan in the bed room and the child lying on the bed. Immediately doctor from Appollo Hospital was summoned and on examination doctor declared both of them dead. Thereafter, at about 6.40 a.m., on 16.04.2011 said Geetha Devi lodged a report about the incident based on which case in Crime No. 125/11 came to be registered for the offences punishable u/s 498(A) 306, 302 reference with Section 34 of IPC against the Petitioner and his parents.

2, During the investigation, Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body and later dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The postmortem examination report in respect of the child revealed that the death was as a result of smothering whole in respect of the wife of the Petitioner, medical opinion was that the death was as a result of asphyxia due to hanging. On hearing the news about the death of his wife and child, Petitioner came to Bangalore from Chittor and during investigation, Petitioner was arrested and when produced before the learned Magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody since then he is in judicial custody. His prayer for bail made before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, Petitioner is before this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent-State and perused the records made available.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even if the materials available on record, at this stage, are accepted at its face value it does not make out any case for the offence under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC, therefore, Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5, As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the elder sister of the deceased, when she came to the house of the deceased, she noticed the deceased hanging from a ceiling fan and child lying on the bed. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, on 13.04.2011 deceased and her son returned to Bangalore from Chittor while the Petitioner stayed back in Chittor, From this it is prima facie clear that on the day when the deceased died, Petitioner herein was in Chittor, At this stage, materials on record prima facie indicate that the death of the deceased-Saritha is suicidal, It appears that the deceased-Saritha before committing suicide had killed her son by smothering and thereafter she hanged herself to the ceiling fan.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable either u/s 306 or Section 302 of IPC. Other offence alleged is one punishable u/s 498A, which is not punishable with death or life of imprisonment. Perusal of the records prima facie indicate that the investigation is almost over. Therefore, there is no possibility of the Petitioner tampering prosecution witnesses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 125/2011 of Hulimavu Police Station, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate/Learned Session Judge and subject to further conditions:

i) that the Petitioner shall not tamper or (sic) the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

ii) that the Petitioner shall appear before the I.O as and when so required and shall cooperate in the investigation of the case.

iii) that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate/learned Sessions Judge on all the dates of hearing without fail.

iv) That the Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions at Bangalore without express permission of the Court concerned.

v) that the Petitioner shall mark his attendance with the I.O. on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month till the filing of the final report.