Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1411 (KAR)

L. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka

2022-10-29

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajendra Badamikar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.44/2022 of Kalasa Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records. 3. The complainant is the mother of the deceased and has set the law in motion by lodging a complaint on 27.07.2022 alleging that her son-deceased Sudheer Bandhari was married to one Divya about 7 years back and they had a child of 5 years. It is also alleged that since there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, Divya is residing in her parental house. It is further alleged that the deceased was running a salon and he had certain financial transactions with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to approach the deceased and used to abuse him demanding the repayment of amount and as such the deceased was mentally upset. 4. The petitioner further alleged that on 27.07.2022 she received a phone call from her son Sunil reporting that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself. She further asserted that there was a death note found and the allegations were made against the present petitioner and hence she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has registered the crime and issued FIR. 5. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is an undisputed fact that there were certain financial transactions between the petitioner and deceased. Though complainant all along asserted that the deceased had taken a loan from petitioner and he sought repayment of the same and humiliated the deceased. But the records produced by the petitioner speaks a different story. It is evident from the records produced by the petitioner that the petitioner had lodged a complaint which was registered before the Police in respect of repayment of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant wherein it is alleged that the deceased had misappropriated the said amount. But the records produced by the petitioner speaks a different story. It is evident from the records produced by the petitioner that the petitioner had lodged a complaint which was registered before the Police in respect of repayment of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant wherein it is alleged that the deceased had misappropriated the said amount. He has also produced a document said to have been given by the deceased before the police wherein he has confessed regarding use of the amount and undertakes to repay the same. Apart from that, the records also disclose that there were certain allegations between husband and wife and the wife had issued a legal notice to deceased making serious allegations regarding his mental state of mind, his bad habits, demand of dowry etc., 7. Looking to these facts and circumstances, at this juncture there is no material evidence to show that it is the petitioner who has instigated or abated the deceased in committing the suicide. 8. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or for life imprisonment. Further, demand for repayment of the loan amount does not amount to abatement or instigation. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence I proceed to pass following:- ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.44/2022 of Kalasa Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O/SHO subject to following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences; iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court; iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order. (v) Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release him on bail as directed. (v) Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release him on bail as directed. (vi) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m until final report is submitted. (vii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever so directed during course of investigation and co-operate with the I.O.