Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 53 (AP)

Ravankol Yadagiri Goud v. State of Telangana

2017-01-25

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2017
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. The petitioners/A 1 and A2 filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.333 of 2015 of Miyapur Police Station Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Lakshmipathi committed suicide on the railway track and initially suspecting his death, a crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., by Miyapur Police Station, but later based on the suicide note, dated 5.4.2015, allegedly found in the office of Lakshmipathi, the section of law was altered from 174 Cr.P.C. to 306 IPC. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that they are no way concerned with the alleged offence, even if the entire allegations in the suicide note are accepted, they would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC since the petitioners never instigated the deceased to commit suicide or drove him to commit suicide or to do any act or omission as required under Section 107 IPC. In those circumstances, the petitioners cannot be arrested in connection with the above crime and therefore, sought the pre-arrest bail. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on three judgments of the apex Court reported in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2005 Law Suit (SC) 392; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) S61 (SC) : 2010 Law Suit (SC) 550 and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 956 (SC) : 2002 Law Suit (SC) 559. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana contended that any act or Commission on the part of the petitioners driving lakshmipathi to commit suicide amounts to an offence punishable under Section 306 read with 107 IPC and drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations made in the alleged suicide note written by Lakshmipathi on 5.4.201.5, wherein he has specifically stated that the petitioners and others are responsible for his death. It is also further contended that the investigation is not completed. 6. A bare look at the allegations made in the complaint would reveal that the death of Lakshmipathi is not a natural. Admittedly it is a suicidal death. It is also further contended that the investigation is not completed. 6. A bare look at the allegations made in the complaint would reveal that the death of Lakshmipathi is not a natural. Admittedly it is a suicidal death. But who is responsible for commission of suicide by Lakshmipathi is a matter to be investigated by the police. But, based on the suicide note, dated 5.4.2015, allegedly written by Lakshmipathi, the Public Prosecutor contended that the persons viz., Sandeep Naresh, Giri, Nagesh and are responsible for the death. The alleged suicide note shows that Lakshmipathi incurred loss of Rs. 4.00 crores in the business. Sandeep is mostly responsible for sustaining said loss and on the account of Sandeep, Lakshmipathi sustained loss to an extent of Rs. 2.00 crores. He also made an allegation that Naresh/A2 advanced Rs. 20,000/- and he collected Rs. 60,000/- as interest as against the principle of Rs. 20,000/-. Similarly, Giri advanced Rs. 8.00 lakhs and collected Rs. 20,000/- as interest. Nagesh advanced Rs. 20,000/- and collected Rs. 20,000/- as interest and on account of said collection, he sustained huge loss in the business and that the Sandeep defrauded him. But, they imputed that Lakshmipathi is that he addicted to gambling and other vices and thereby he drove himself to commit suicide. 7. The main contention of the petitioners that the incident took place long ago, by now there was no progress in the investigation, but still the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with the above crime. On close scrutiny of entire allegations made in the suicide note, do not disclose about driving the Lakshmipathi to commit suicide and in the absence of any allegation attributing any overt acts against these petitioners, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that they are responsible for the suicidal death of Lakshmipathi. The Case Diary produced before this Court, at best, would show that Lakshmipathi died due to heavy indebtedness, borrowing huge amounts from different persons. In the absence of any specific allegation against each petitioner, even in the suicide note, it is difficult to find prima facie case against these petitioners that they drove Lakshmipathi to commit suicide by their acts or omission or by direct instigation. In the absence of any specific allegation against each petitioner, even in the suicide note, it is difficult to find prima facie case against these petitioners that they drove Lakshmipathi to commit suicide by their acts or omission or by direct instigation. In all the three judgments, the apex Court consistently held that while deciding commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC there must be an instigation by the act or omission to commit suicide by a person as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. In the present case, the allegation that the deceased Lakshmipathi paid certain amounts towards interest as against the principal amount to the petitioners and others would not amount to driving him to commit suicide. Therefore, prima facie, I find no material against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC and consequently, the interference of the petitioners with the investigation in the above crime would not arise after lapse of two years from the date of alleged commission of offence. 8. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I find that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed directing the Station House Officer, Cyberabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said S.H.O. Further, the petitioners are directed to report the said S.H.O. on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon for a period of three months or till filing of charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.