Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 608 (KAR)

B. S. Manju v. State of Karnataka

2022-05-10

MAHESHAN NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail pertaining to Crime No. 58 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, it having been turned down by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysore, sitting at Hunsur in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 451 of 2022. 2. Heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The facts in brief are: A crime is registered in Crime No. 58 of 2022 on 26.02.2022, on a complaint made by one Smt. B.S. Divya, wife of Manjunatha, alleging that her father Swamigowda had committed suicide on account of the petitioners and accused No. 1 hurling abuses in filthy language on 23-02-2022. The father of the complainant dies by consuming tablets which contained poison. He was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment and despite receiving medical treatment, the father of the complainant died at about 6.05 p.m. on 26-02-2022. On registration of the crime, the petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 4 approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge declined to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that the offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and involvement of the petitioners requires to be assessed. The investigation is pending and if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may threaten prosecution witnesses and are likely to commit similar offence. It is this rejection that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that the incident of hurling abuses even if it is construed to be true has happened on 23.02.2022, the complaint is registered only on 26-02-2022. The allegation is that, the petitioners along with others have verbally abused the father of the complainant uttering "you may go and die" and on frustration, the father of the complainant consumes tablets containing poison. The allegation is that, the petitioners along with others have verbally abused the father of the complainant uttering "you may go and die" and on frustration, the father of the complainant consumes tablets containing poison. The learned counsel would submit that there is no nexus or proximity to the incident of commission of suicide that is required under Section 306 of the IPC and would submit that the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail failing which, they would be arrested and would be put to grave hardship. 5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to sustain the order of rejection of anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC and would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. The commission of suicide by the father of the complainant by consuming tablets containing poison on 26.02.2022, is not in dispute. The exact abuses hurled on the father of the complainant is This is hurled on 23-02-2022, three days prior to the date of commission of suicide. There is no foundation laid in the complaint by narration that the petitioners were present or have instigated the deceased to commit suicide to an extent that there was no other option left to the accused. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Arjunan v. The State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will no, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide..." Later, the Apex Court in the judgment of Ude Singh And Others. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will no, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide..." Later, the Apex Court in the judgment of Ude Singh And Others. v. State Of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , has held as follows: "For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC." The Apex Court clearly holds that if the accused by his acts and continuous course of conduct creates a situation, which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 of the IPC. The facts narrated hereinabove, the abuses quoted supra and the incident taking place three days after the alleged abuse would all lead to a prima facie conclusion that there was no proximity as is required in law to drive home abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. It is also to be noticed that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Though the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years, the narration in the complaint of the incident would not mean that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail albeit imposing stringent conditions. 8. It is also to be noticed that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Though the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years, the narration in the complaint of the incident would not mean that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail albeit imposing stringent conditions. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER This criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in relation to Crime No. 58 of 2022 of Hunsur Rural Police Station pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Hunsur, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond each for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (ii) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court; (iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer. (v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. (vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.