Karnataka High Court
Sri H Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6584 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1 . SRI H MAHESH
S/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.2680/A, 11TH MAIN
'D' BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560010.
2 . SRI H SATISH
S/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT "SAYANA APARTMENT"
THALAGATTAPURA
BENGALURU-560109.
3 . SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O L HUCCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT TULASIVANM
OPP. B.W.S.S.B. BALEPET
BENGALURU-560053.
4 . SRI SREENIVAS D V
S/O LATE B VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT 695, 32ND MAIN ROAD
14TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560078.
2
5 . SRI MAYUR M SAVALI
S/O SRI MANJUNATHA H
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT TULASIVANM, OPP. B.W.S.S.B
BALEPET, BENGALURU-560053.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP.
BY SRI. DR. PRAJWAL K ARADHYA, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR
APPLICANT/COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.438
CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE, BENGALURU, TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CASE OF THEIR ARREST IN
CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.148/2022 REGISTERED BY
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM)
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
306 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1,2 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.148/2022 registered by the Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and learned counsel Dr.Prajwal K. Aradhya, who assisted the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by one Poornima alleging that she got married to Girish on 20.06.2002 and was having a son by name Arya Rajath, aged about 19 years. Her husband was having two wine stores and a Bar. The accused persons were the mother, brothers and sisters of her husband. Accused No.1-mahesh, who is the brother of her husband was looking after the wine store situated in Akshyanagar 4 and later on accused No.1 demanded to give the wine store to himself which was refused by her husband. Her son, who was studying in PUC was interested in taking the wine store business and in that regard he used to visit his Uncle's wine store and used to help his uncle. Subsequently, there was a dispute between the family members of her husband in respect of property and accused No.1-Mahesh was not allowing her son to come to his wine store. After that incident, her son committed suicide on 06.12.2021 and thereafter the family members of her husband started harassing him mentally and physically to handover his all properties to them. This made him to commit suicide on 12.02.2022 in the house of her mother-in-law (Karthyanyini, A-10). This made her to file complaint against the accused persons. The police have registered a case against the accused persons.
4. During the pendency of this petition, accused Nos.6 and 7 i.e., petitioners-4 and 5 herein were arrested 5 on 25.07.2022 and remaining three accused are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 06.12.2021, son of the complainant committed suicide and her husband also committed suicide on 12.02.2022. She has not filed any complaint against the family members-accused persons but she has filed a civil suit against them for partition and a writ petition has been filed before this Court which was referred to Mediation Centre for settlement and the mediation was also failed. He further submits that in order to harass the family members of her husband she has falsely implicated them by filing a complaint. Some of the accused persons are already arrested and some of the accused persons are on bail. Hence, prayed for release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected for grant of anticipatory bail to 6 the accused persons as they are required for custodial interrogation. The investigation is still in progress as there is a suicide death note left by the husband of the complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel who assisted learned HCGP also submits that there was a death note left by the deceased which was sent to FSL and the report is still awaited. The accused persons are required for custodial interrogation. Hence, sought for rejection of the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, admittedly, the complainant is none other than the daughter-in-law of accused No.10 and the mother of accused Nos.1 and 2. In the criminal case, it is stated that, son of the informant committed suicide on 06.12.2021 but no complaint has been lodged against any of the family members. Subsequently, her husband also committed suicide in the house of accused No.10-mother of the deceased. In this regard, UDR was registered by the police and the same 7 came to be closed as there is no suspicion against any persons. Subsequently, it appears that a civil suit was filed by the complainant in O.S.No.452/2022 for injunction. It also appears that in the writ petition filed by the complainant, the matter was referred to mediation centre for settlement and the settlement was not arrived at between the parties. It is seen that the complainant has not filed any complaint against any of the family members of her husband immediately after coming to know that her husband committed suicide though she has stated in the complaint that the family members of her husband harassed him mentally and physically. She has filed the complaint only after four months from the date of the incident.
9. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Investigation is yet to complete. The FSL report of the death note left by the husband of the complainant is still awaited and is not produced before the Court. As per the 8 submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the deceased has not made any complaint on any of the family members for abetting him to commit suicide or any reason for committing suicide.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if the petitioners are granted bail by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER The criminal petition in respect of petitioners-4 and 5 / accused Nos.6 and 7 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
The criminal petition in respect of petitioners-1 to 3 / accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are allowed.
The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioners-1 to 3 / accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 on bail in the event of their arrest Crime No.148/2022 registered by the Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offence punishable 9 under Section 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions;
(i) Petitioners-1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court;
(ii) Petitioners shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iv) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
tamper with any of the prosecution
witnesses;
(v) Petitioners shall be deemed to be in
custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(vi) Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer and mark their
10
attendance on every Monday between
10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of
two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is later.
In view of disposal of main petition itself, I.A.No.1/2022 filed for interim anticipatory bail does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL