IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1630/2019 Between:
1. Sri. Shivakumar S/o. Singaraju, Aged about 36 years, R/at Huchanapalli, Noganuru Post, Denkanikote Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu 635 107.
Permanently r/at Periyamanavaranapalli, Nynakuppum Post, Vepanapalli Tlauk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu 635 107.
2. Sri. Padmanabha Soundappan S/o. Late Venkateshan, Aged about 48 years, R/at Melukote Village, Thali Main Road, Denkanikote Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
… Petitioners (By Sri. Shivakumar P, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka By Anekal Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore.
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in C.C.No.826/2016 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge JMFC at Anekal relating to Crime No.318/2014 of Anekal Police for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No. 318/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 306 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased stating that the deceased was working as an agent in the company – Achievers Agri India Private Limited and had collected huge amounts from the investors on behalf of the Company. It is stated that the company went bust and winding up petition was preferred as against the company and there was no repayment to the investors. It is stated that the depositors used to make demands from the deceased with respect to the money that they had paid. It is alleged that the deceased committed suicide on 25.12.2014 leaving behind a death note stating that the accused were responsible for his death. The complaint has been lodged. Petitioners have been arrayed as accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the company itself was wound up and question as to proof of offence under Section 306 of IPC is a matter to be proved during trial. As to whether the incidents as alleged drove the deceased to commit suicide, is also a matter to be proved during trial and hence, it is contended that the present proceedings cannot be construed to be proceedings for punishment and petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further pointed out that the petitioners are in custody with respect to the proceedings relating to the present crime since 20.04.2015.
4. Taking note of the fact that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, nature of offence that is made out being under Section 306 of IPC, matter of proof of incidents that drove the deceased to commit suicide is a matter to be established in trial. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 2015 and also that present proceedings cannot be construed to be proceedings for punishment, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.318/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case Sd/- JUDGE VP