Karnataka High Court
Smt. Pooja @ Jyoti And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200881/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. POOJA @ JYOTI
W/O SHIVAKUMAR CHETTY,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC.HOMEMAKER
R/O SHIRSI (A), TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR,
NOW RESIDING AT SANGOLGI
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR 585401
2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHASHIDHAR HINDA
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SANGOLAGI, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR 585401
3. SHANTKUMAR S/O SHASHIDHAR HINDA
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SANGOLGI
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR 585401
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION,
BIDAR
(REPTD BY ADDL SPP HC KLB 585101)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.88/2022 OF GANDHI GUNJ
POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-BIDAR, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 306 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE PRL. II
JMFC COURT, AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.88/2022 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and her marriage was solemnized during 2009 and they got one female child by name Arpita. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers of petitioner No.1.
3
3. It is alleged by the complainant that he is none other than the father-in-law of petitioner No.1. It is contended that petitioner No.1 and her husband-deceased led happy married life for three years. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 started ill-treating her husband demanding him to hand over his entire earnings, for which, the complainant and others had advised her not to do so. It is further alleged that two years prior to the death of deceased, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased and complainant's brother-in-law has taken Rs.3,00,000/- for his work. It is further alleged that since two years petitioner No.1 has been ill-treating the family members of the complainant and her husband and for the last five months petitioner No.1 is residing in her parental house at Sangolgi village in Bidar district. It is alleged that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were giving threatening calls stating that they are not due to pay any amount to him. Thereafter when deceased went to Sangolgi to bring his wife, it is alleged that the petitioners assaulted him for which he felt bad and committed suicide in his house by keeping a death note stating that these 4 petitioners are responsible for his death. Based on that FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard Sri.S.R.Kadloor, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No.1 is residing separately from her husband and the allegations that there is money transaction between the deceased and the petitioners cannot be believed. On the other hand, the deceased had lost balance of mind as he is addicted to alcohol. Learned counsel further contended that the incident of suicide occurred in the house of the complainant and petitioners are residing at Sangolgi village, which is 25 kms away from the residence of the deceased Taking undue advantage of this, the complainant has filed the false complaint. Learned counsel further argued that the ingredients of Section 107 or 306 of IPC are not attracted. There is no material to show that there is any act by the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He further argued that learned Sessions Court rejected the bail 5 petition, therefore there is apprehension of arrest. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are ready to abide by conditions that may be imposed by this Court for their release on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following decisions:
1. Sanjay vs. State of Karnataka (2022 SCC online KAR 193)
2. Sridhar vs. State of Karnataka (2020 SCC online Kar 459)
3. N.Naveen Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2015 SCC online KAR 2638) Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
6. On the other hand, learned HCGP contended that the incident was taken place as these petitioners assaulted and abused the deceased and abetted deceased to commit suicide. There is death note mentioned name of these petitioners. Hence, he prayed to reject the bail petition.
7. I have perused the petition averments, FIR and other materials and the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The relationship of petitioner No.1 and the deceased is not disputed. It is also evident the marriage took between 6 deceased and petitioner No.1 about 12 years back and they have got one female child. It is also evident from the complaint that five months prior to death petitioner No.1 is residing in her parental house at Sangolgi village in Bidar district. It is also evident that some phone calls made by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the alleged money transaction is more than two years back. On the other hand there is allegation of ill-treatment by the deceased. Therefore, keeping in mind settled principles regarding bail if the material on records are considered, in my considered view that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to allow the petition. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Consequently, the petitioners/accused No.1-Smt.Pooja @ Jyoti W/o Shivakumar Chetty, accused No.2-Shivakumar S/o Shashidhar Hinda, accused No.3-Shantkumar S/o Shashidhar Hinda are ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with 7 Crime No.88/2022 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:.
1. The petitioners shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO of jurisdictional police;
2. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer interrogate and shall enlarge them on bail;
3. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses;
4. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police/SHO on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of Charge Sheet whichever is earlier and shall co-operate in the investigation;8
5. The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential correct address to the Investigating Officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address;
6. The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
7. The petitioners shall appear before the Court/Investigating Officer as and when required.
In case if any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE s du