K.N. Somashekar vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable u/s 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 213/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that as per the complaint averments so also other materials produced in the case, the alleged offence u/s 306 of IPC will not be attracted in this case. Though there is an allegation that the deceased consumed poison on 2.7.2014, but immediately the complaint was not lodged and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Hence, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The allegations in the complaint that petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring amount from her parental place and was telling her that she is not fair looking and that she should go and die so that he can lead peaceful life, are all false allegations made against petitioner. Without any basis an allegation is made against the petitioner that he married one Nikhita two years earlier to the incident of this case which fact came to the notice of the deceased. Even if it is assumed that in anger petitioner has told his wife go and die, that itself is not sufficient to attract the offence u/s 306 of IPC. There is no such abetment at all. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported in Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, . It is submitted that there are lot of materials to be produced and if petitioner is granted with bail, he will bring those materials and will produce before the Court.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material i.e., the averments in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses they prima facie shows that: there used to be ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased by the petitioner. She consumed poison because of his ill-treatment and harassment when she was leading her marital life in the house of the petitioner. The matter is still under investigation and hence, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record in the case, so also, the decision and the principle enunciated in the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein.

As per the complaint averments, the father of the deceased has lodged the complaint alleging that petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. He was also assaulting her and in that connection number of times panchayath was held and the panchayathdars advised the petitioner not to give ill-treatment to the deceased and to treat her properly. There is also allegation that about two years back earlier to the incident, petitioner married one Nikhita, which fact also came to be known by the deceased. He was telling the deceased that she is not having a fair complexion and if he saw the face of the deceased he cannot get any work done and he was telling her to go and die and that if she dies, he can lead peaceful life. At this stage, these are the serious allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint as well as in the statement of witnesses. Regarding the truth or falsity of the allegations made, it is not the stage for this Court to examine the same and only during the course of trial the Court can ascertain these things. At this stage the Court can only look into the material as to whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner or not to consider the bail application. Not only that, as submitted by the Government Pleader, the matter is still under investigation and the Investigating Officer has to collect some more material and file final report in the case. Hence, without expressing any opinion of this Court as to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to be released on bail, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail at this stage when the further investigation is still going on. Petitioner is at liberty to move the Court immediately after completing the investigation and filing of charge sheet with these observations, for the present, petition is rejected.