Karnataka High Court
Akshata W/O Shivaraj Havinal vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO.100033 OF 2020
Between:
Akshata W/o.Shivaraj Havinal,
Age 21 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.: Muddattanur, Tq.: Shiraguppa,
Now at Kandakur, Tq.: Kushtagi,
District Koppal.
... Petitioner
(By Shri Santosh B.Malagoudar, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Through PSI, Kushtagi Police Station,
Rep. by its Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
SPP Office, High Court of Karnatkaa, Dharwad.
... Respondent
(By Smt.Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge her on bail on such terms and
conditions as deemed fit in Kushtagi P.S. Crime No.154/2019
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 109 read with
Section 34 of IPC insofar as present petitioner-accused No.1
is concerned, pending Court of the District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
:2:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21st November 2019, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in Crl.Misc.No.703 of 2019, by virtue of which the application for bail as filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to the deceased-Shivaraj, who was supporting her in her studies by providing her with monetary support, for the purpose of her studies the petitioner was residing in matrimonial house at Kundakur village and prosecuting her studies in A.N.M. Course at Kustagi. She had on several occasions called upon the deceased-Shivaraj, her husband to provide her with money for payment of fees etc., and the deceased had borrowed money from certain third parties and made available such monies. However on one day the petitioner is said to have gone missing and on enquiry, it came to light that she had eloped with her paramour by :3: name Ravi. On coming to know about the same, he got depressed, he had visited his mother in law's house requesting her to file a complaint as regards his missing wife, the petitioner herein and subsequently after nearly one and half month he committed suicide by hanging. The complaint has been filed by the mother of the deceased who is also the mother in law of the petitioner alleging that on account of her elopement by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the petitioner has abetted the act of suicide.
3. The trial Court rejected the application for bail on the ground that the offence as alleged against the petitioner is triable by the Sessions Court and the punishment prescribed is up to 10 years with fine. The trial Court is of the opinion that the act of elopement by the petitioner was the cause for the deceased to commit suicide.
4. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for enlargement on bail. Shri Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned :4: counsel for the petitioner contends that even on comprehensive and careful reading of the complaint it does not disclose any overt act of abetment by the petitioner in the act of suicide by the deceased. The date of elopement as contended is 28.06.2019, whereas the deceased had committed suicide between 31.07.2019 and 01.08.2019. He further submits that between 28.06.2019 and 31.07.2019 there was interaction between the petitioner and the deceased over phone when the petitioner in fact the deceased was no longer interested in living with the deceased and was seeking for divorce. Apart from this, there is no other interaction between them. He further submits that in respect of accused No.2 i.e., Ravi, the paramour, this Court has already been pleased to allow the application for bail by ways of its order dated 10th October 2019, passed in Criminal Petition No.101875 of 2019. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. :5:
5. Learned HCGP opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner in the matter contending that the deceased had gone out of his way to make available financial assistance to the petitioner in order to prosecute her education. The deceased having supported the petitioner in all respects, the elopement by the petitioner resulted in grave depression in the deceased and it is this act of elopement, which prompted the deceased to take his life. Therefore, the cause being elopement and effect being suicide, the petitioner has abetted the said act of suicide by elopement and refusing to rejoin with the deceased as also threatening the deceased with divorce proceedings.
6. Having heard both counsel. The dispute between the petitioner and deceased was matrimonial in nature. The petitioner apart from eloping has not caused any other distress, the petitioner allegedly being unhappy with the deceased had eloped with her paramour. It is only after one month thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, at this stage it :6: cannot be contended that there was any abetment by the petitioner in the act of suicide of the deceased.
7. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for allowing the petition as filed and order for the enlargement of the petitioner- accused on bail in Kushtagi P.S. Crime No.154 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakhs only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and or any matter relating to the case of the prosecution.
:7:
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the trial Court.
(v) The petitioner shall submit a list of immovable properties said to be owned by her to the trial Court.
In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*