Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 860 (KAR)

Rakesh Kumar M. @ Rakesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-11

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri. K.S.Ganesha, for Sri.T.A.Karumbaiah, for petitioner and Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. wherein, the petitioner seeks grant of bail in Crime No.59/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC of the respondent Police Station. 4. The date of complaint is 12.02.2020. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.02.2020. 5. Previously, the petitioner had made petition before the learned LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.1548/2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. that came to be dismissed on 27.02.2020. 6. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 7. Heard. 8. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the orders passed by the learned LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.1548/2020 on 27.02.2020 is as under: 'The brief facts of the bail application is as under: It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant by name Renuka was in love with the petitioner and 2 years back the deceased left the house of the complainant and started staying with the petitioner and complainant used to visit her occasionally. That on 08.02.2020 morning deceased had called complainant to speak and complainant had told the deceased that she will meet in the evening and talk. That on 08.02.2020 at about 09:00 p.m. complainant got a phone call from the respondent police that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging in the petitioners sister house. It is further averred that the complainant visited the respondent police and saw the video recorded in the mobile of her daughter Renuka, wherein she has stated that 'she is committing suicide as she did not wish to live anymore and no one is responsible for her death.' Since the complainant did not suspect any foul play and based on the statement of the complainant, the respondent police registered a case and investigation was going on.' 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with false and concocted reasons, the petitioner is being lodged in judicial custody. He has no antecedents to disqualify from the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with false and concocted reasons, the petitioner is being lodged in judicial custody. He has no antecedents to disqualify from the grant of bail. The allegations made against the petitioner is that deceased Renuka is the daughter of the complainant and she was fallen in love with the petitioner and about two years back, the deceased deserted the complainant and was started staying with the petitioner. However, the complainant was visiting the petitioner occasionally. It was on 08.02.2020, the deceased Renuka called to the complainant and told him that she will meet him in the evening and talk to him. However, on 08.02.2020, complainant has received the telephonic call from the police to the effect that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself and also saw the video recorded in the mobile of her daughter, wherein the deceased claims that 'she committed suicide as she didnt wish to live anymore and no one is responsible for her death'. Hence, complainant had no occasion to suspect the foul play of the petitioner. However, he came to know on 12.02.2020 that because of the blackmail and cheating of the petitioner, the daughter of the complainant deceased Renuka was compelled to leave the planet by committing suicide. The complainant also claims that her daughter was forced to given the statement in the video recorded in accordance with the tune of petitioner. In the circumstances, the complainant claims that he has reasoned to believe the foul play against the petitioner and he further claims that petitioner promised to marry Renuka but dis-appointed her and in this connection she was compelled to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of incident is 08.02.2020 and the complainant has lodged the complaint on 12.02.2020. There is a delay in lodging the complaint by four days. Hence, he seeks for allowing the petition. 10. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petition of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not made out ground for getting bail. The stay of the petitioner in judicial custody has no relevance for his release. The intentions of the petitioner are not good. The conduct of the petitioner is threatening also. He does not appear to be a law abiding citizen and has committed heinous offence. 11. The stay of the petitioner in judicial custody has no relevance for his release. The intentions of the petitioner are not good. The conduct of the petitioner is threatening also. He does not appear to be a law abiding citizen and has committed heinous offence. 11. I have perused the allegations that the complainant has believed that there was foul play by the petitioner-accused, thereby offence being committed by him. In the overall circumstances of the case, the factor to be considered are that petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.02.2020. There is no complaint of interference to the investigation by the petitioner. Due to the existing situation caused by impact of COVID-19 and stay of the petitioner in judicial custody it has created alarm situation in the family. I have also taken note of the present restless situation because of pandemic. In the light of the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody and learned District Judge has rejected the bail application on 27.04.2020, I find no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is granted bail and released from the judicial custody and apprehension of the prosecution could be always resolved by imposing conditions. 12. The petition is allowed and petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.59/2020 registered by the respondent police against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the likesum. ii) The petitioner-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not come into contact with the complainant or his family members. iii) The petitioner shall undergo medical check-up immediately upon his release on bail, by suitable medical officer and quarantine himself exclusively in his house for a period of 14 days from the date of release unless he is required for hospitalization to prevent further complications regard being had to the fact of Covid-19. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru city without prior permission of investigating officer for a period of three months.