Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. B. Mallikarjunaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9556 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. P.B.MALLIKARJUNAIAH
S/O BASAVARAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.800, FLAT NO.201,
DIVYA RESIDENCY, 8TH MAIN,
BEML LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
5TH STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 098.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE) (PH)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) (PH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
2
CR.NO.232/2022 REGISTERED BY RAJARAJESHWARI
NAGAR POLICE STATION, 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:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.232/2022 of Rajarajeshwari Nagara Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that the deceased Holabasappa Chinchakandi was working as a Driver in BMTC Depot No.21 at Uttarahalli. It is further alleged that on 29.08.2022 at 12.30 p.m the complainant received a message from the colleagues of her husband that her husband deceased Holabasappa Chinchakandi has committed suicide in the premises of the depot by hanging himself. It is further asserted that there was a death note left by him alleging that he was being harassed by the Depot Manager i.e., the present petitioner and the same has prompted him to take extreme step of committing 3 suicide. Hence, the complainant being the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint in this regard. On the basis of the complaint the Investigating Officer registered the crime and issued FIR.
3. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the Anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.
5. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased was working as a Driver in BMTC, Uttarahalli Depot No.21. The petitioner was working as a Depot Manager in the said depot and the records produced by the petitioner disclose that on the same day he was transferred and from morning he was handing over the charge to the incumbent Depot Manager to enable him to report to the transferred posting on the 4 next date. Around 12.00 or 12.30 p.m the deceased has committed suicide in the premises.
6. The complaint is based on death note and oral information provided by the deceased to the complainant that he is being harassed for granting the leave by the Depot Manager. The death note which is relied by the prosecution simply disclose that the deceased has applied for leave and petitioner sent a message to the deceased that he cannot grant the leave as there is shortage of staff. It is further asserted there, that when he has no right to take leave for two days and hence he was up-set and taken the step of committing suicide. It is to be noted here that deceased was working as a public servant. Admittedly, no public servant can claim any leave as a matter of right. They are the public servants and they are meant to serve the public. The records also disclose that he was suffering from some tumor in the throat and he was required to be operated about 1 year back. The records further disclose that all along he applied for leave 5 regularly and some times unauthorized leave which was converted into E.L.
7. Considering these aspects as observed above, no leave can be claimed as a matter of right. Further denial of leave by the higher officer cannot be termed as a instigation or abatement as defined under Section 107 of IPC . If in such matters it is treated as abatement then it will be very difficult for the higher officers to extract the work from subordinate officers. The dignity and decorum of the office will not be maintained in case the officer behaves casually and to maintain the decorum the officer is required to take necessary steps within the parameters of law.
8. In the instant case no evidence is placed to show that the petitioner has exceeded the powers or parameters of law. Under these circumstances, merely on the basis of the death note, it cannot be presumed at this Juncture that the petitioner has abated or instigated the deceased for committing the suicide.
6
9. Further, the petitioner is a public servant and now admittedly he is not serving in the depot No.21 as he is transferred. Hence question of he tampering the prosecution witnesses does not arise at all.
10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.232/2022 of Rajarajeshwari Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; subject to following conditions:-7
i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;
iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.
(v) The petitioner shall himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE VS