Harshitha vs State

Jawad Rahim, J.—In the matter relating to suicide committed by a minor Girl-Ramya, the case is under investigation in Cr. No. 30/09 on the file of Sakaieshpura Town Police Station.

The petitioner is shown as the lone offender in the crime. He is not yet arrested and has sought for direction to the respondent-police to release him on bail In the event of his arrest u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the materials collected by the prosecution makes no case much less a prima facie case for charge u/s 306 of the IPC.

He drew my attention to the allegations in the complaint submitted by brother-in-law of the deceased in which he narrates how the petitioner came in contact with the victim-Ramya; developed affair with her and on her rejection of his proposal of marriage, how he tarnished her image. According to him, even if the allegation made in the complaint are to be taken as fact, it makes no case fur any action against the petitioner u/s 306 of the IPC. He seeks support to his contention relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (2) Crimes 175 (SC) in the case of Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah @ Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, in the case of Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishna @ Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned HCGP has opposed grant of bail drawing my attention to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the circumstances in which Ramya died.

Keeping in mind what is urged, I have examined the material on record. At this stage, the investigation is in the very Initial stage. The complaint submitted by the brother-in-law of the Ramya is the main material. The complainant in his report reveals that Ramya was his sister-in-law and was studying in the Polytechnic at Hassan. The accused was also travelling in the same bus and came in contact with her. He developed an affair with her and in fact kept constant contact telephonically. The relationship continued for some time and then the accused offered to marry her. During this period, family members persuaded the accused not to contact the girl who was a minor and the girl had also returned the Simcard given by him. Despite such serious objections from the family and also from Ramya who appears to have discarded him to contact her, the accused attempted to tarnish her image in the Polytechnic, where she was pursuing her education. What transpired on 12.2.2009 is pointed out in the complaint which how that the accused had visited Polytechnic and indulged in character assassination, describing her as an woman of loose character which upset the girl to such an incident that she consumed toxic substance and succumbed to the same on 15.2.2009. On the face of it, prima facie a case is made against the accused for such indulgence and abatement to commit suicide.

The case law relied by the learned Counsel will aid in deciding what constitutes abatement to suicide and does not deal with grant of bail. It is of no avail in the matter relating to grant of bail.

The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that no material is found in the complaint is devoid of merits. The second contention of the learned Counsel that tarnishing the image of the victim girl and her character assassination may amount to only defamation and not abatement of suicide Is only far-fetched which does not help him seeking bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. These aspects can be canvassed to seek discharge when investigation concludes. Keeping this option open to the petitioner, I am satisfied that no case is made out to grant him relief as sought by the petitioner.

In the result petition fails and the same is rejected.