Allowed

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M v. the State of Karnatkaa

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024CRL.P/1300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. challenging arrest for alleged instigation to suicide (306 IPC) and harassment (506B IPC). The Court held evidence was insufficient to prove criminal intent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety subject to conditions including surrender, non-tampering of witnesses, and weekly attendance.

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M Vs the State of Karnatkaa — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY .G.M, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.134, THIPPAPURA ROAD, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOLALA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO.03/2024, FILED BEFORE THE KOLALA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506B AND 306 OF IPC, PASSED BY THE HONBLE 4^TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Kolala Police Station in Cr.No.3/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 306 & 506(B) of IPC pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere.

¶21

The brief allegations of the prosecution are that the petitioner knew the complainant and his family and he was entrusted a deal of selling the property of the complainant. However, the petitioner is said to have sold the said land with a promise to buy the property, but that was not done. It is further alleged that the accused/petitioner used to visit the first informant residence and was moving close with his daughter and subsequently, the complainant left the residence in Doddaballapura and relocated in Chikkasagere village. It is alleged that on 06.01.2024, at 9.30 p.m., petitioner/accused visited the residence of complainant

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶23

and called his daughter over the phone. Thereafter, they were found talking with each other and complainant and his wife went there and called their daughter. But she refused to return with them. Later on, it is alleged that the petitioner/accused took the daughter of complainant by force to the back of the residence and showing a knife threatened them not to meddle with their love affair. Later on, the complainant took his daughter and wife to his residence and there was a fight between the wife of the complainant and the daughter.

¶24

On, 07.01.2024, at 1.30 p.m., the wife of complainant approached her daughter for lunch, but his daughter refused and left the house. Then the complainant’s wife left with the scooty, but did not return. However, at 2.45 p.m., the complainant received the information that the scooty was parked near Mathuramma temple and they also discovered the footwear of wife of complainant at the tank bund near the temple. Hence, the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶27

complainant has lodged a complaint, suspecting that his

¶28

wife is missing, with a request to search her.

¶29

Two days later, i.e., on 08.01.2024 the body of

¶30

wife of the complainant, Lakshmidevi, was found in the tank. Then the complainant gave further statement alleging that the petitioner and his daughter were the cause for death of his wife and it is alleged that the petitioner has instigated his wife in committing suicide by

¶31

jumping in the tank. The petitioner apprehending his arrest, approached the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, Sitting at Madhugiri and the learned Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Heard the learned Senior Counsel

¶33

Sri. D.R.Ravishankar for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent. Perused the records.

¶34

The allegations made in the complaint disclose

¶35

that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶37

daughter of the complainant. It is also evident that the complainant and his wife were not in favour of the love affair, but the daughter of the complainant was not heeding to their advice and used to ignore them. It is alleged that on 06.01.2024, the petitioner is said to have approached the daughter of the complainant and when they were seen together chatting, the complainant and his wife asked their daughter to come to the house, but she refused and then it is alleged that at that time, the petitioner is alleged to have shown a knife and threatened them not to meddle in the relationship between him and their daughter. Only this allegation was found initially in the complaint.

¶38

However, when the dead body was traced, in the further statement, the complainant has made direct allegations against the petitioner, alleging that he abated the deceased in committing suicide by uttering the word that she should go and die and he will not spare them if she meddles in the relationship between himself and the

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶40

complainant’s daughter. The allegations further disclose that the petitioner has again called the deceased in the noon on her mobile and threatened her as well as abated her.

¶41

The learned HCGP has produced the call details of mobile of petitioner and deceased. There is no serious dispute of the fact that petitioner was possessing mobile bearing No.9742582889, while the mobile number of the deceased was 8971432667. But the call details disclose that there are only two conversations on 06.01.2024 at night 8.03 p.m. and 8.11 p.m. The further statement allegations disclose that on 07.01.2024 noon also the deceased was called by the petitioner on her mobile and instigated her. But the call details produced disclose that on 07.01.2024, there was no call between the mobile of the petitioner and deceased in the noon and the call was at evening 6.01 p.m. upto 6.48 p.m. and in between this there were as many 12 calls and it also discloses that there was conversation for a sufficient period. However, it

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶43

is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased used the mobile in the evening and definitely this conversation should be through mobile of the deceased by the family members of the deceased only since the deceased was not found after 1.30 p.m. on 07.01.2024. Hence, question of she talking with the petitioner in the noon or in the evening does not arise at all and in the noon there were no calls. Even though there were 12 calls in the evening, but admittedly deceased was not alive by that time. Hence, the further statement allegations that there was a call in the afternoon also and the petitioner has abated the deceased cannot be accepted.

¶44

The allegations were regarding abatement in committing suicide by incorporating the offence under Section 306 of IPC. To attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are required to be proved. But in the instant case, except allegations at this juncture, no such evidence is forthcoming to show that the petitioner has really intended

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶46

that deceased should go and commit suicide. To attract the offence, the mens rea is an essential part and that is not forthcoming. in the instant case. Mere assertions to the effect that ‘go and die’ does not amounts to abatement or instigation and there should be a clear mind set in this regard. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1427/2024 (KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA) Spl leave petition (crl.) No.9949/2023 (ASHOK KUMAR vs. STATE OF UNION TERRIOTORY CHANDIGARH) and Crl.A.No.3578/2023 (MOHIT SINGHAL & ANR. V. THE SATE OF UTTARKHAND & ORS.) of the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decisions has clearly observed that to attract instigation there should be an intention and mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It is further held that the act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to put the deceased to such a position under which he/she has no choice but to commit suicide. Further, such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of

¶47

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶48

committing suicide. But in the instant case no such evidence is forthcoming. At this juncture, no proximity is forthcoming between the act of the petitioner and the suicide said to have been committed by the deceased wife of the complainant. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail since there is no issue of custodial interrogation or recovery. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(I) The petition is allowed .

¶51

(II) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on

¶52

anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.3/2024 of Kolala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(B) of IPC pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere, on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:10251 CRL.P No. 1300 of 2024

¶55

like-sum to the satisfaction of the SHO or the concerned

¶56

trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶57

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of his surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.

¶58

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶59

(iii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶60

(iv) He shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

¶61

(v) He shall mark his attendance before SHO between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on every first and third Saturday of the month till the final report is submitted.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M v. the State of Karnatkaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M v. the State of Karnatkaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankith C Vs the State by Vidana Soudha Police Station

Smt Bhavya Vs State by Kumaraswamy Layout Police

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju Vs the State by Kamakshipalya Police Station

Sri. Shivamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Satyapal Vs State of Karnataka