Malayali K.A. Subramani vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable u/s 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 168/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that accused No. 2 has been already granted bail by the Sessions Court. Even against the present petitioner there are no serious allegations made and the only allegation that he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. The allegations made in the complaint are not sufficient to infer that the petitioner and accused No. 2 have abetted the commission of the offence. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that both the accused persons were giving ill-treatment to the deceased and the petitioner herein was suspecting her fidelity alleging that she is having an affair with some other person. Hence, there is a prima facie material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Even as per the statement of neighbouring witnesses namely, Lakshmi and Kusuma, they have stated in their statement about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by her husband and mother-in-law. Hence, he has submitted that there is prima facie material against the petitioner, hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record so also, the order passed by the trial Court on the bail application.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no serious allegations made against the present petitioner and that it is the petitioner himself who cut the sari where she strangulated herself and took the deceased to the hospital for treatment, and the Doctor has declared that she has been brought dead. But perusing the statement of neighbouring witnesses said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it is the neighbourers who took the deceased to the hospital for treatment and when she was declared as brought dead, the dead body was brought back to the house of the deceased. Even as per the statement of two witnesses, deceased used to come to their house and was stating before them that her husband and mother-in-law were not allowing her to talk with her mother over phone. Hence, through their phones she was talking to her mother. In her phone conversation also she used to tell her mother that her husband and mother-in-law were suspecting her fidelity and were alleging that she is having an affair with some other person and were giving ill-treatment to her.

The statements made by the deceased over phone conversation to her mother is also relevant for appreciation of the bail petition. The incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner when the deceased was leading her marital life with him. Looking to all these materials on record, it is seen that prosecution has placed prima facie material about the abetment of the petitioner for committing suicide by the deceased.

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No. 2 has been already granted bail and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to bail, the said ground is not applicable to the petitioner, since accused No. 2 is an aged women and even as per the statement of witnesses serious allegations are made against the petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.