Allowed

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021CRL.P/100187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner faced charges of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions regarding bond, surrender, appearance, and witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; respondent directed to release petitioner on bail subject to execution of personal bond, surrender within 15 days, regular appearance, and prohibitions on tampering.

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100187/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI SHIVSHANKAR, S/O SATYAPPA DABBU AGE 38 YRS., OCC: SERVICE R/O YARNAL VILLAG, TQ. HUKKERI DIST. BELAGAVI 591 221

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.R. KAPAHI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 50 001 THROUGH SANKESHWAR PS.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, , HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN SANKESHWAAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.9/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC ON ANY CONDITIONS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE ENDS OF PROMOTING JUSTICE.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.9/2021 registered for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint by one Sri.Murugeppa Malleshappa Naganur-father of the deceased Shruti, the respondent-police registered a case against the petitioner on 10.01.2021. It is alleged by the complainant that, his daughter-Shruti was working as a Post-Master at Hukkeri and residing at Sankeshwar along with her children. Her husbandManjunath was working in a pirvate factory at Bailur, Dharwad, and he used to go to his daughter’s house once in a week. That on 09.01.2021 at 5.30 pm, the complainant received phone call from his grandson stating that his mother was not found in the house and a chit was left by his mother wherein it was stated that the present petitioner-Shivshankar Dabbu, KSRTC conductor, is he cause for her death. Immediately, the complainant went to the

¶20

¶21

house of his daughter along with his wife and his daughter Pooja. They went near Hiraynakashi river bridge where a TVS scooty of his daughter was parked and on searching the TVS scooty, another chit was found wherein it was stated that her husband-Manjunath Danappanavar was the cause for her death. Later, they found the dead body of her daughter floating in the river. Hence, the complaint. After registering the case, since the police were making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner, he approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated. Absolutely, there is no material against the petitioner to connect him with the crime. He further contended that, the are two suicide notes left by the deceased one implicating the petitioner and the other implicating her own husband. The hand writing on the death note found at home was identified by the father of the victim as that of his daughter but the handwriting found in the scooty was not that of his daughter. The petitioner is said to be a

¶23

¶24

permanent resident of Yarnal village, Taluk Hukkeri, and he is working as a KSRTC conductor in Hukkeri depot. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶25

Per contra, leaned High Court Government Pleader objected to the bail petition and contended that, as per the death notes and the statement of the children of the deceased, the deceased used to visit the house of the deceased and used to quarrel. The neighbours also gave statement tha the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and on their statements, it reeals t hat this petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Investigation is still pending and the petitioner is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and on perusal on the records, it goes to show that on 10.02.2021, the dead body of Shruti was found in Hiranyakeshi river and the vehicle was parked near the bridge where a chit was found which is alleged to be a death note wherein she has stated that her husband

¶27

¶28

Manjunath was the cause. She has given the phone number of her husband and as per the compliant, another death note was found in the house which was traced by the son of the deceased implicating the accused. However, it is seen from the records that, the accused used to visit and stay in the house of the deceased and further Shruti-deceased used to talk over mobile phone during late night hours. However, there is no other material placed on record to show that what is the actual cause for Shruti to commit suicide and how the accused was the cause for the death of the deceased.

¶29

At this stage, it is not possible to presume as to what was the cause for committing suicide by the deceased either it is her husband or the petitioner or may be a paramour. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is said to be a KSRTC conductor at Hukkeri depot, his presence could be secured easily and he absconding from the case is not made out. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

¶30

¶31

7. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶32

The Criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-Sankeshwar Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.9/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/trial court.

¶34

ii. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for investigation and to mark his attendance between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm every day for a period of one week and thereafter once in a week i.e. every Saturday for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶36

iv. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶37

¶38

v. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

¶39

vi. The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

kmv

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basappa Mahadevappa Kadlikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri Vs the State of Karnataka

Nana Kale S/O. Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Annappa S/O Yallappa Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab Vs the State of Karnataka