Allowed

Ramu P S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 May 2022CRL.P/3416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail grantees, the husband and in-laws of a suicide victim, in a case under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The court held that while allegations of harassment are prima facie, the specific act of abetting suicide must be established at trial, warranting release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2L each with two sureties and conditions against witness tampering, unauthorized travel, and mandatory court appearance.

Ramu P S Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3416/2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3424/2022

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3416/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMU P.S., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SRINIVASAPPA P.N., RESIDING AT SANJEEVINI LAYOUT, LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. ALSO AT NO.21 A, 3^RD CROSS, BEHIND AAKASH CINEMAS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SHO, MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.46/2022 OF MADANAYAKANAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3424/2022:

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O SRINIVASAPPA P.N.

¶19

RAJENDRAPRASAD P.S., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRINIVASAPPA P.N.

¶20

BOTH RESIDING AT: SANJEEVINI LAYOUT, LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KARNATAKA.

¶21

ALSO AT: NO.21 A, 3^RD CROSS, BEHIND AAKASH CINEMAS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058. … PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE

¶25

¶26

HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, BENGALURU CITY-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.46/2022 REGISTERED BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. COURT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶29

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

These two petitions are filed by husband and mother-in-

¶32

law and brother-in-law of the victim under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

seeking regular bail in Crime No.46/2022 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶35

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶36

that the marriage of the victim was performed 11 years ago with accused No.2 and all of them were residing together and there

¶37

¶38

was no any issues in the said wedlock. Hence, the husband as well as brother-in-law and mother-in-law subjected her for harassment and instigated the victim to go and die and ultimately she committed suicide by hanging.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the victim did not conceive for a period of 11 years and she has committed suicide only due to depression and the allegation against the husband and in-laws are all false. The learned counsel submits that earlier they were residing at Laggere and thereafter shifted to Dasanpura, wherein also they have taken care of the victim and there are no grounds to invoke Section 306 of IPC.

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that when the victim did not conceive, she was subjected to harassment and also abated her to commit suicide and there is a prima facie material against the petitioners.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶42

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, the police have already investigated the

¶43

¶44

matter and filed the charge-sheet. The allegations against the petitioners is that they subjected the victim for harassment and also instigated her to commit suicide and the fact that she has committed suicide in the matrimonial home is not in dispute. However, whether they abated her to commit the suicide or not is a matter of trial and investigation has already been completed and hence, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail since they are in custody from 31.01.2022.

¶45

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶46

following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.46/2022 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

¶51

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶53

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Ramu P S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu P S v. 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

Papanna Vs State of Karnataka

A Krishna Vs Sriram Fin Corporation

Sri. Madhukeshwara G M Vs Sri. Harikishore

Rakesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan Kotiyan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N R Sugandaraju Vs State of Karnataka