Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 520 (KAR)

N. Venkatesha v. State Of Karnataka

2014-05-13

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2014
Judgment : 1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 & 3 in Crl.P.No.2698/2014 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.2699/2014 is accused No.2. The case is registered at the instance of the Complainant, who is father of the deceased. The Complainant has stated that her daughter committed suicide on 4.4.2014 by pouring kerosene on herself and it is happened because of abetment made by the petitioners. The deceased reported to the Complainant that on 29.3.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. while she was returning home, the accused uttered some bad language and the same was informed to the parents. On information, they went to the house of the petitioners and the petitioners caused insult against the family members of the deceased, which was the cause for death of her daughter. Accordingly, complaint was filed, which is registered in Crime No. 105/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POSCO Act, 2012. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners .submits that the offences as it is alleged against the petitioners does not attract Section 306 of IPC for the reason that there is no close proximity between the abetment said to have been caused by the petitioners and by filing memo, learned Counsel produced copy of admission ticket issued by the Karnataka State Open University against accused No. 3 and he has to appear for the examination on 30. 6.2014. If the bail is denied, there is likelihood of damage to his career; he never alleged anything except stating that the Complainant has taken away the property and the deceased returning home at late night. This itself is not sufficient to abet the crime. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on reading of the complaint it does not attract Section 306 of IPC. Daughter of the complainant died not only because of the alleged words against her, but also reckless utterances against the family members of the deceased. When an offence is alleged against the petitioners, the overt-act should attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC abeting the death of daughter of the Complainant, which was happened on 4.4.2013 i.e., about 5 days prior to the incident. The reason for delay for the extreme steps taken by the daughter of the Complainant is not forthcoming. When an offence is alleged against the petitioners, the overt-act should attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC abeting the death of daughter of the Complainant, which was happened on 4.4.2013 i.e., about 5 days prior to the incident. The reason for delay for the extreme steps taken by the daughter of the Complainant is not forthcoming. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER 1. Petitions are allowed. 2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.2698/2014 are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing self bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees Only) along with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below. 3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.2699/2014 is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 105/2014 of Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bangalore City on his furnishing self bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand Rupees Only) along with two solvent sureties for the like sum. 4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 5. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without prior permission. 6. The petitioners failing to comply any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.