AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Nawaz, J
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in Crime No.47/2023 registered at Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru.
The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant has filed I.A.No.1/2023 to assist the prosecution. The same is allowed.
I have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
Crime No.47/2023 of Marathahalli Police Station is registered against the petitioner and his parents for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC, on a complaint lodged by the father of deceased-Smt Piyali Mukherjee, wife of the petitioner. Charge sheet is filed against the petitioner alone, for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that, marriage of first informant’s daughter –Smt Piyali Mukherjee was solemnized with the petitioner/accused No.1 on 05.02.2021, as per Hindu Customs. After the marriage, the couple started residing at Flat No.201 of one Shradha Palmera Apartment, situated at Kaverappa Layout, Panathur, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 developed illicit relationship with another girl and coming to know about it, deceased requested him to change his attitude and to lead a marital life as a dutiful husband, but he refused to listen to her and therefore the deceased was mentally disturbed. Further, petitioner was not responding to her calls and messages. The deceased used to note down the mental and emotional harassment meted to her in a diary. Feeling hurt and depressed on account of the mental and emotional harassment, she committed suicide on 24.02.2023 by hanging herself in her matrimonial home.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and there is absolutely no material collected by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with another girl. He contends that the nature of allegations and the facts of the case do not disclose the ingredients of the offence now alleged against the petitioner. He contends that there is no earlier complaint against the petitioner regarding any sort of harassment given to the deceased and the complaint was lodged after two days with an ulterior motive, against the petitioner as well as his parents making various allegations which are found to be false and the names of the parents of the petitioner were dropped while filing the charge sheet.
The learned Senior counsel has further contended that the essential ingredients of the offence now alleged against the petitioner are not made out and considering the facts of the present case, at no stretch of imagination it could be stated that the petitioner has intentionally aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Pointing out to the sequence of events, he would contend that the couple travelled together to Kolkatta to attend a wedding and on 16.02.2023 the deceased alone travelled back to Bengaluru since her company required her to work from home at Bengaluru itself. The deceased was supposed to travel back to Kolkatta for her brother’s wedding on 10.03.2023. She committed suicide on 24.02.2023. He contends that if there was matrimonial discord between the couple, the petitioner cannot be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
The learned Senior counsel has contended that intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must to attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC. He has relied on plethora of judgments in support of his contention.
The learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.03.2023. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety to ensure his presence before the trial Court and will abide by any conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, sought to allow the petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant has filed statement of objections. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there is substantial evidence collected against the petitioner to show that the deceased has committed suicide on account of the mental and emotional harassment meted to her by the petitioner. It is contended that the accused had an extra marital affair and deceased has confronted him many times and asked him to change his behavior and live a happy married life, but he refused to mend and instead stopped conversing with the deceased and reply to her messages. It is contended that the deceased went through a lot mentally after she discovered about her husband’s extra marital affair and even her in-laws did not bother to advice their son and change his behavior to live life as a dutiful husband. It is contended that all this behaviour has induced the deceased to take the extreme step and thus the petitioner has abetted her to commit suicide.
It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Bengaluru and therefore it will be difficult to procure his attendance before the trial Court. Further that, he is a highly influential person and he is capable of tampering the witnesses and destroying the evidence. Hence, they have sought to reject the petition.
The learned counsel on both the sides would rely on the contents of whatsapp messages exchanged between the deceased and one Shubham Chandra, a relative of the deceased. At this juncture, while considering a bail petition, this Court cannot go deep into the matter so as to evaluate the evidence on record or to conduct a mini trial. It is well settled that while considering a bail petition, Court should exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not as a matter of course, but cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles for grant or refusal of bail. At the same time the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, position and standing of the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced are the criteria to be considered.
In the case on hand, the relationship between the party is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner on 05.02.2021 and they were living together in a flat in Bengaluru. The main allegations are that the petitioner was having an extra marital affair with some other girl and inspite of repeated requests, instead of mending his behavior, he stopped conversation with the deceased and refused to attend her phone calls and messages. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner has mentally and emotionally harassed the deceased and thereby abetted her to commit suicide.
In ‘Ude Singh V. State of Haryana’ reported in ‘(2019) 17 SCC 301’, it is held that “in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be cogent and convincing proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. It is observed in the said judgment that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment or suicide. Each case is required to be examined on its own fact while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. There is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same’.
For the purpose of disposal of this petition it may not be necessary to discuss the various pronouncements of the Honb’le Apex Court, referred to by the learned Senior counsel, since each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the case on hand, the allegations are that the petitioner was having an extra marital affair and he refused to change his behaviour and to live life as a dutiful husband and refuse to mend and instead stopped talking to the deceased and answering her calls and replying her messages. Whether by such acts the petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide is a matter which has to be established during a full fledged trial. The prosecution has to place all the evidence before the trial Court to establish the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2023 and he is not required for further interrogation. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice etc can be met with by imposing suitable conditions. This Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioner is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused in Crime No.47/2023 of Marathahalli Police Station, is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:
(1) Petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] with two sureties for the likesum, out of which one shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(2) Petitioner shall furnish his contact number and proof of his residential address and shall inform the I.O/Court if there is change in the address/contact number.
(3) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence either directly or indirectly.
(4) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing without fail, unless exempted for any genuine reason.
(5) Petitioner shall cooperate for the early disposal of the case.