Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Chowdaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Sampigehalli

High Court Of Karnataka|15 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8517/2017 BETWEEN:
Chowdaiah S/o Late Marilingaiah Aged about 34 years R/at No.207 Legrand View Apartment Near BBMP Park Kenchanahalli Rajarajeswari Nagar Bangalore-560 076. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Venkata Reddy C M, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka Sampigehalli Sub-Division Amruthahalli Police Represented by the Public Prosecutor Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.197/2015 of Amruthahalli P.S., Bengaluru, for the offence P/U/S 306 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.197/2015.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. The wife of the deceased is the complainant in this case. She has stated that her husband was serving in KSRTC as driver cum conductor. For 8 days he had not gone to duty due to pressure of work. On 23.11.2015 he told his wife that he will go to duty and wrote a complaint to his higher officers against the petitioner and went inside the room. He did not wake up till 3.00 p.m. When she went to tell him to go to office, she saw that her husband had committed suicide by hanging. Hence, it is contended by the complainant that because of pressure of work and the torture given by the petitioner herein, her husband committed suicide and the petitioner has abetted the commission of suicide by her husband. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint filed, case was registered for the said offence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while arguing the case has submitted that for a period of continuously 8 days deceased remained absent. The materials placed on record show that he himself committed suicide and there is no any sort of torture or ill-treatment given by the petitioner herein. Petitioner is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court and is also ready to co-operate with the investigation agency either for interrogation or for further investigation in the matter. Accordingly, sought for grant of bail.
6. Looking to the materials on record and the contention of the petitioner in the bail petition and also as the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.197/2015, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chowdaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Sampigehalli

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
15 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal