Vinay Kumar K.M. vs The State of Karnataka

K.H. Keshavanarayana, J.—Apprehending his arrest by Kodihalli police in Ramanagara District in connection with non-bailable case in Crime No. 12/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC, the Petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in the said case, has presented this petition u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of anticipatory bail inter-alia on the ground that he is innocent person and has not committed any of the acts alleged in the complaint and that the allegations made in the complaint are all false, concoeted and that at this stage there are no reaconable grounds to believe that he in any way abetted the commission of suicide the deceased Shruthi, and that he apprehends his arrest by the Respondent police, therefore his personal liberty is required to be protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

Petition is opposed by Respondent inter-alia on the ground that at this stage there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner by his acts abetted commission of suicide by the deceased, therefere, he is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

I have heard both sides and perused the records produced.

One Kum Shruthi, daughter of Ramesh, S/o. Sannegowda, resident of Kokkarehosahalli village committed suicide on 26.1.2011 between 10.30 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., while she was alone in the house by consuming some poisonous substance. Thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint at about 3.30 p.m. on the same day, based on which, case in Crime No. 12/2011 for the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC came to be registered against the Petitioner and his father. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Petitioner herein was teasing deceased Shruthi, whenever she used to go the college and he was insisting her to marry him, if not, he would throw acid on her face, and thereby she was terrorised and was subjected to mental harassment and cruelty and this was disclosed by her to her father and after coming to know of the same, the complainant went to the house of the father of the Petitioner herein and asked him to advice his son i.e., the Petitioner, however, the father of the Petitioner gave arrogant answers and abused the complainant in fifty language and thereahter, the Petitioner herein continued acts of harassment by sending SMS messages through mobile. According to the complainant, in this background, his daughter Shruthi committed suicide by consuming poison, while she was alone in the house.

At this stage, the fact that deceased consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide is not in serious dispute. The question is as to whether there are prima-facie materials to indicate that the Petitioner herein in any way abetted the commission of suicide by the Petitioner. As noticed supra, the only allegation against the Petitioner is that he was insisting the deceased to many him and was threatening to throw acid on her face, if she does not marry him.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if there was really such threatening by the Petitioner herein earlier to the date of commission of suicide by the Petitioner, nothing prevented either the deceased or her father to lodge a complaint to the police in that regard and absence of any such complaint is an indicating factor about the falsity of the allegations made in the complaint. This contention of the defence is required to be considered by the Trial Court during trial. However, at this stage, having regard to the materials available on record and the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner herein in any way abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, at this stage, there are no reasons to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been arrayed as accused. No. 1 in the non-bailable case registered by the Respondent police. Therefore, the apprehension of the Petitioner that he is likely to he arrested in connection with non-bailable case is well-founded. In view of the fact that at this stage there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged, his personal liberty is required to be protected by means of an order of Anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, Petitioner is entitled for relief of Anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions.

In the result, petition is allowed. Respondent police are hereby directed to release the Petitioner herein on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 12/2011 subject to his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O. and subject to further condition that:

a. The Petitioner upon such arrest and release shall appear before the I.O. as and when required by him and cooperate in the investigation of the case.

b. The Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.