Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 482 (KAR)

H V Omkarappa v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-21

V SRISHANANDA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel along with Smt. Swamini G. Mohanambal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: 'Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition, grant anticipatory bail and direct the respondent - police to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.16/2023 dated 23.01.2023 registered by the respondent - Jnanabharati Police, Kengeri Sub-Division, Bengaluru for offences under Section 109, 116, 309 & 306 of IPC pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in the interest of justice." 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Based on the complaint lodged by Smt. Sindhu G.S., Jnanabharathi Police have registered a case in Crime No.16/2023 on 23.01.2023 initially for the offences punishable under sections 109, 116 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). 4. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that the petitioner herein having lent the loan was demanding for repayment of loan from the deceased and in that regard, the deceased and his family members consumed poison. While filing the remand application, the police have invoked Section 306 of IPC and petitioner is sought to be apprehended. 5. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl. Misc. No.895/2023, which was dismissed by order dated 07.02.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition Sri. C. V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere demand of the repayment of loan amount would not per se amount to an abetment for a person to commit suicide and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. He further contended that initially, the police have registered a case under Section 309 of IPC against the deceased and subsequently, in the remand application invoked Section 306 of IPC as against the petitioner and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. 7. He further contended that initially, the police have registered a case under Section 309 of IPC against the deceased and subsequently, in the remand application invoked Section 306 of IPC as against the petitioner and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes for grant of anticipatory bail contending that on account of the strong demand made by the petitioner, not only deceased consumed poison but also his family members have consumed poison and fortunately other members of the family have survived and they are still taking the treatment and the same exposes the gravity of the offence and sought for rejection of the bail. 9. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 10. As could be seen from the materials on record, the only allegation of abetment as against the petitioner is he demanded for repayment of loan amount from the deceased. 11. Whether at all, the demand of repayment of loan amount would per se amount to an abetment for a person to commit suicide or not is a matter that has to be decided by the trial Court during the trial. 12. Suffice to say that from the date of offence, the petitioner is not available to the Investigating Agency and therefore, investigation has crippled. 13. Directing the petitioner to join the investigation and undergo limited period of custodial investigation would meet the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on merits of the matter, the following order is passed. ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Agency on 30.03.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. 3. Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the accused / petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day, before 5.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail, on petitioner executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 4. Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency and in that regard directed that petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. 5. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. 4. Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency and in that regard directed that petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. 5. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly. If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration. Ordered accordingly.