IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5304/2019 BETWEEN:
Pamila Marceline Rozario W/o late Manu Aged about 29 years No.3/332, maniyamparai Kandikuppam, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu-635 108.
Previously at No.25, 11th Cross, Lakshmi Layout, Munnekolala, Bengaluru City-560 037.
(By Sri N.Devaraj, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Marathahalli Police Station Represented by Spl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001.
…Petitioner …Respondent (By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.262/2018 of Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge her on anticipatory bail in Crime No.262/2018 of Marathahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint are that the father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that accused No.1 got married with deceased about nine months’ back and they were staying in a rented house. Both were working in different private companies. Accused No.1 and her parents have given mental torture and threatened the deceased not to give any money to his parents, sell the properties of his father and buy a new house at Bengaluru and threatened to satisfy the said needs. It is further stated that if the deceased not going to satisfy the needs of accused No.1, she asked the deceased to come and stay in her parents’ house. In that light, on 30.5.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. accused No.1 left the house to go to her parents’ house and the deceased took the decision to commit suicide. Before committing suicide, he made a phone call to accused No.1, so she came back and saw the deceased was hanging in a bed room window and on the basis of the complaint filed by the father of the deceased, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the Court below has already enlarged accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail. On the ground of parity the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that because of the domestic violence a case was registered at Bargur Police Station and there the father and the deceased have given the undertaking that they will look after the accused No.1 properly. He further submitted that when the deceased committed suicide, accused No.1 was about to proceed to her parents house and it is the deceased who called her and when she came back he has already committed suicide. There is no specific averments alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to show that she instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the contents of the complaint clearly goes to show that because of the ill-treatment in the form of imposing conditions the deceased was harassed and as a result of the same he has committed suicide by hanging. It is his further submission that there was no co-operation of the accused No.1 to the deceased and because of the ill-treatment and harassment he has committed suicide by hanging in the bed room window. He further submitted that still investigation is in progress and the petitioner/accused has not co-operated and because of non co-operation investigation has been hampered and there are no good grounds to enlarge her on bail. If she is released on bail, she may abscond and may not be available for the trial. On these ground he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc.No.25710/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge. Even on going through the contents of the complaint and other material the alleged incident has taken place on 30.5.2018 and there were no serious allegations made so as to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC, even prior to committing of the suicide there are no such ingredients so as to attract the said provisions. When already accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions if petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.262/2018 of Marathahalli police station for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) She shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
iii) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) She shall mark her attendance in the jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the charge sheet is filed.
v) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-