Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 491 (KAR)

Radha Bai v. State of Karnataka

2011-04-28

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2011
Judgment : 1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners 1 to 5 who are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.61/11 of Town Police Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 306 r/w 149 of IPC, have sought for the relief of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid non-bailable case registered against them inter alia on the grounds that, they are innocent persons and they have not committed any of the acts alleged in the complaint and even if the entire complaint allegations are accepted as true and correct, it does not make-out any case against them and that they have reasonable apprehension of their arrest by the respondent-police, as such, they are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. The petition is opposed by the prosecution. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. One N.R. Divakardesai Gowda, lodged a complaint at about 1.00 a.m. on 28.02.2011 to the effect that his neighbourer Saritha has committed suicide by hanging inside her house and at about 5.45 p.m., on 27.02.2011, there was a quarrel between the petitioners herein on one hand and the deceased Saritha on the other hand, on the ground that she abused them over telephone for petitioners-4 & 5 having sent obscene messages to her cell phone and during that quarrel, the petitioners herein abused the deceased in filthy language in the public view and also asked her to go and die and in that background, she committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered and investigation was taken up. 4. According to the petitioners, even the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted at its face value as true and correct, it does not make-out case for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed any of the offences alleged, as such, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. At this stage, the fact that Saritha committed suicide by hanging inside her house is not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, there are no reasonable grounds to indicate that the petitioners have in any way abetted the commission of suicide by said Saritha. At this stage, the fact that Saritha committed suicide by hanging inside her house is not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, there are no reasonable grounds to indicate that the petitioners have in any way abetted the commission of suicide by said Saritha. Even as per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein during the quarrel, abused the deceased and asked her to go and die. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint and the background in which the deceased said to have committed suicide, prima facie it cannot be said that the petitioners herein have abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged. Admittedly, the petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons in the case registered for non-bailable offence. Therefore, their apprehension that they are likely to be arrested by the respondent-police in the said case is well-founded. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners herein on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.61/11, subject to each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and also on the following conditions:- i) The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner; ii) The petitioners, for the purpose of investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case. iii) They shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case. Petition allowed.