Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2245 (KAR)

B. K. Padmanabha Reddy v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-12

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.113/2020 of HSR Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. I have heard Sri Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 virtually and Sri V.S.Hegde, the learned SPP-II for the respondent-State. 3. The first information was given by one Abhishek, the son of the deceased viz., N. H.Vanajakshi, who committed suicide. While untying the dead body from the knot, he saw death note left behind by the deceased. In the death note three names were mentioned to be responsible for the suicide. It appears that there was a financial transaction between the deceased, the petitioner-accused No.1 and other accused persons. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that contents of the complaint do not indicate that there was an abetement by the petitioner-accused No.1 to the deceased to commit suicide and in that light, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted. It is his further submission that the death of the deceased was noticed when the body was hanging and immediately they have shifted the body to the hospital, where it was declared that the deceased was brought dead. Thereafter the body was taken to the house and intimated to the police on the next day. It is his further submission that under similar circumstances, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.4770/2020 disposed of on 13.10.2020 and accused No.4 has been released on bail in Criminal Petition No.4704/2020, disposed of on 1.10.2020 and on the ground of parity the petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint go to show that on 28.7.2020 the complainant had been to the house at about 2.00 p.m. and had lunch along with the deceased. He spoke to the deceased for some time and thereafter she went for sleep. At that time, she has not stated about any financial transaction with the petitioneraccused No.1 If really the suicide was because of the financial transaction definitely the deceased could have discussed the said aspect with the complainant. He spoke to the deceased for some time and thereafter she went for sleep. At that time, she has not stated about any financial transaction with the petitioneraccused No.1 If really the suicide was because of the financial transaction definitely the deceased could have discussed the said aspect with the complainant. It is his further submission that the death note which is intending to be relied upon is also fabricated one. It is his further submission that petitioner-accused No.1 is highly respectable person and is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned SPP-II has vehemently argued and submitted that there is a direct allegation as against the petitioner-accused No.1 for having been involved in the crime. It is his further submission that since 2002 some financial transactions were existing and in spite of repeated requests made by the deceased, the petitioner-accused No.1 has not made any payment and even when she has called and asked for payment, he told her to die and do whatever she wants and he would not pay the amount that itself goes to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is his further submission that the deceased has left a death note by mentioning the name of the petitioner-accused No.1 and the said death note itself is self-explanatory to show that it is the petitioneraccused No.1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased. It is his further submission that till the investigation is under progress, death note has been sent to RFSL and the report is yet to receive as whether the death note is in handwriting of the deceased or not. It is his further submission that the antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1 are also not good, he has been involved in some of the criminal cases i.e., in Crime Nos.240/2018 and 258/2020. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused No.1 is a businessman, millionaire and very influential person and if he is ordered to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, he prayed that at this juncture it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail. 6. On these grounds, he prayed that at this juncture it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint, it indicates that the complainant had been to the house on 29.7.2020 at about 2.00 p.m. and he had lunch along with the deceased. At that time, the deceased has not intimated about the financial transactions and no discussion was made. It is the submission of the learned SPP-II that it is a psychological aspect that one cannot predict how the human behaviour would be there at the time when the deceased has committed suicide. I do concede that it is a physiological aspect. But when the financial transactions have taken place in the year 2002 and on 28.7.2020 there was some conversation between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the deceased, the same was not disclosed as to when exactly and at what time the petitioner-accused No.1 told the deceased to die or whatever she wants to do she could do. In the absence of any specific period, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was not abetted by the petitioner-accused No.1 and because of such abetment said to have been made by the petitioner-accused No.1, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. There is no clarity in mentioning the timings as to when exactly she called the petitioner-accused No.1 and who in turn told her to die. Be that as it may, even it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased has left a death note. Even though she has not informed the complainant about the factual matrix of the case, while writing the death note, at least she could have mentioned as to when exactly and at what time the petitioner-accused No.1 told her to die or whatever she wants to do she could do. In the absence of any particular material in the death note, it cannot be inferred that it is the petitioner-accused No.1 who abetted the deceased and because of the same, the deceased has committed suicide. In the absence of any particular material in the death note, it cannot be inferred that it is the petitioner-accused No.1 who abetted the deceased and because of the same, the deceased has committed suicide. The death note and other aspects which have been intended to be relied upon by the prosecution are the matters which have to be considered and appreciated during the course of trial. Though the antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1 are not good and two cases are registered, on going through the records, one case was registered in year 2011 and another one is of the year 2018. Taking into consideration the said aspect, the contention raised by the learned SPP-II is not having any force. Though it is contended by the learned SPP-II that the petitioneraccused No.1 is a businessman, millionaire and there is every likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution evidence, by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner-accused No.1 is released on bail, it would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused No.1-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in Crime No.113/2020 of HSR Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii) He shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court till the trial is completed. iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. iv) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in a month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the trial is concluded. v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission. vi) If he violates any one of the conditions, the bail is liable to be cancelled.