Karnataka High Court
V Subramanyam vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1314/2014
BETWEEN:
1. T V SUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE SUBBARAO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
SENIOR PLANT MANAGER
C/O UMADEVI
NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE
SIRA GATE,
TUMKUR -572101.
2. SANJAY KUMAR TULSIAN
S/O NIRANJAN LAL TULSIAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.2032, BRISTOL BLOCK
PRESTIGE KINGSTON GARDEN
H.M.T FACTORY
MAIN ROAD JALAHALLI
BANGALORE 560013
3. B RAMESHA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
GRAMEEN BANK
IMMEDIHALLI ROAD
WHITE FIELD,
BANGALORE 560066
4. C N V REDDY
S/O C NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NAYANA ENTERPRISES
MARUTHI PLAZA
M G ROAD,
2
TUMKUR-572101.
5. GANGADHARAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SUPERVISOR
NAYANA ENTERPRISES
MARUTHI PLAZA
M G ROAD,
TUMKUR-572101
6. D SHAKTHIVEL
S/O DANDAPANE K
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKER IN KALESHWARI
REFINERY PRIVATE LTD
KIADB AREA ANTHRASANAHALLI
TUMKUR-572101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.M.NATARAJ, SR. COUNSEL
FOR ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TUMKUR RURAL POLICE,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO.47/2014 OF TUMKUR RURAL
P.S., TUMKUR, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL.C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TUMKUR, WHICH IS
3
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 149 OF
IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release on bail the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 6 in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 read with 149 of IPC registered in Crime No.47/2014.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the complaint that complainant is the elder brother of the deceased. Deceased brother was working in Kaleshwari Refinery Private Ltd., Unit-II in Boiler Section. Deceased Arun Kumar was also a member of factory Association. In the factory, false allegations are made with regard to theft against him and they also insisted to leave the membership of the 4 Association. Same was informed to him. On 07.02.2014 at about 9.00 a.m. Arunkumar went for attending the duty as usual. He did not return even in the evening. When he called over the phone, but he did not received the said call. They went near the factory and enquired and came to know that he did not go to the work and also searched for him. At about 10.45p.m he came and saw near their shop his deceased brother's cycle was parking in the said place which is situated by the side of Shridevi Engineering College. He opened the shutter and went inside and he came to know that his younger brother committed suicide by hanging through plastic wire to iron hook. He also saw the letter which is kept on the table. Said letter was written before committing suicide. In the said letter his brother stated that Subramanya, Sanjay, Tulasiyan, Ramesh, C.N.Reddy, Gangadharaiah and Shekthivel i.e., present petitioners have made allegation of theft and given mental torture to him. For that reason, he committed 5 suicide and the case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC will not be attracted. Looking to the averments made in the complaint and also the materials placed by the prosecution, counsel submitted that there is no instigation or abetment to the petitioner to commit suicide. Learned counsel made the submission that only allegations made in the complaint that they were making a false allegation of theft and also asking to leave the membership of the association. In these two things, now the prosecution has made out a case of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Learned counsel made the submission that though the 6 complainant as per the averments made in the complaint that he has seen the alleged death note during the night on 07.02.2014 itself but he lodged the complaint on the next day and hence there is delay in lodging the complaint and even he has not produced the alleged death note before the police at the time of filing the complaint. Hence, counsel submitted that looking to the materials produced by the prosecution there is no prima facie materials against the present petitioners and they are Senior Manager, Supervisor, Joint Directors of the Company and hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions they may be enlarged on bail and they will co-operate with the Investigating Officer. In support of that the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3107, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.10704/2012 dated 20.07.2012.
5. As against this, the learned HCGP, during the course of his arguments submitted that, regarding the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners to the 7 deceased, it is mentioned in the death note so also the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of two witnesses, who have also stated in their statements that deceased used to tell before them about the ill- treatment given by the present petitioners about the alleged theft and the deceased to leave the membership of the Association. Hence, the learned HCGP made the submission that these two materials collected by the Investigating Officer clearly make out a case that it is the present petitioners, who abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. He also submitted that the present petitioners are absconding and not available for the Investigating Officer for investigation. The Investigating Officer has recorded only two witnesses and the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. As per the averments made in the complaint the brother of the deceased made the complaint and he has 8 stated two reasons for his brother to commit suicide, one is that the petitioners are alleging that he has committed theft and that they were telling the deceased to leave the membership of the Association, otherwise they will give more work to the deceased. Looking to these averments, it is no doubt true as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased also left the death note which was found on the table in the room where he has committed suicide and it is also the case of the prosecution that even there was an oral dying declaration given before the police about the ill- treatment given by the present petitioners.
7. I have also perused the decisions and the principles enunciated in the said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses that so far as the allegations of theft is concerned, no documentary material has been placed, whether any complaint has been lodged by the present 9 petitioners against the deceased alleging the he committed theft. At this stage, assertion that they were threatening with regard to the alleged theft by the deceased and another allegation that he has to leave the membership of the Association, considering these aspects of the matter and also the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the order passed by this Court on 20.07.2012 in Crl.P No.10704/2012, I am of the opinion that, prima-facie at this stage the prosecution has not shown that the present petitioners abetted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Regarding the contention of the learned HCGP that the matter is still under investigation and the present petitioners are not available before the Investigating Officer for investigation, by imposing stringent conditions which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioners.
10
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.47/2014 subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to give attendance before the respondent-police station fortnightly, preferably on Sunday between 10.00 a.m to 12.00 noon, till the completion of the investigation 11 iv. The petitioners to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of copy of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR