Sri. Manuprasad vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 143/2013.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant''s younger brother by name Devaraju and his wife Smt. Rajamma gave birth to two female children and one male child. Amongst them, Suma was pursuing her 2nd year PUC at Puravara Government PU College. Manuprasad, S/o. Ramesha, the petitioner herein, a resident of nearby village was insisting her to marry him. The said fact was informed by Suma to her parents and also to the complainant. On such information, the complainant and a person by name Muddahiriyappa resident of the same village, his wife Kamakshamma and Vijaykumar convened a Panchayat, summoned the petitioner and advised him for 2 to 3 times to many some other girl and not to trouble their daughter Suma. Despite such advise, the petitioner used to insist her to marry while she was going to school and hence, she stopped perusing her studies. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner used to call Suma from a telephone booth causing mental depression. As she was not interested to marry him, decided to end her life. Accordingly, on 11.11.2013, in the morning, again he pressurised her to marry him. As such, at about 7.30 a.m., she consumed pesticides and she was struggling. On enquiry, she disclosed the above said fact in the presence of Krishnamurthy her parents a relative of the complainant Devaraju and Anantha. Immediately, they all with the help of a driver by name Manjunatha took her to Madhugiri Govt. Hospital and provided treatment. From there, she was referred to Tumakur Govt. Hospital and she died on the way to the hospital. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that there are no materials against the petitioner to show that he was ill treating the deceased. He also submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not at all committed the alleged offence. The learned Counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the parents and the relatives of the deceased have given statement before the investigating officer during investigation about the ill treatment given by the petitioner to the deceased. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

In the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, the parents and the relatives of the deceased have clearly mentioned about the ill treatment given by the petitioner to the deceased insisting her to marry him. The parents of the deceased have also stated that the deceased consumed poison and on enquiry, she disclosed before them about ill treatment given by the petitioner insisting her to marry him. For the reason, the deceased decided to put an end to her life. This oral statement of the deceased before her parents also amounts to oral dying declaration regarding cause of death. A relative of the deceased also gave statement of the ill treatment said to have given by the petitioner to the deceased. As submitted by learned HCGP regarding cause of death, final opinion is yet to be received and the matter is still under investigation. Looking to all these materials, at this stage, in my view, it is not a fit case wherein discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.