Allowed

Raju Biswas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024CRL.P/200134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail plea by a husband booked for 498A and 306 IPC over his wife's suicide. The court found no prima facie material showing abetment, noted police failure to register an unnatural death case, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including non-tampering, cooperation with investigation, and no travel beyond trial court l

Raju Biswas Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200134 OF 2024 (439)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAJU BISWAS S/O RABINDRANATH BISWAS, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: R. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O BERIBERAYA, POST BERABERAYA, TQ. AMADANG, DIST. UTHAR 24 PARAGANA, STATE WEST BENGAL, NOW RESIDING AT BIRIYAL K. TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585225.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI BHIMASHANKAR B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L AND: MALAGHAN Location: HIGH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH COURT OF JEWARGI POLICE STATION, KARNATAKA R/ BY, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR NO. 34/2024 JEWARGI P.S KALABURAGI

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶18

REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498 A, 306 IPC BY THE JEWARGI POLICE STATION JEWARGI PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT JEWARGI.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

This petition is filed by under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking the regular bail in Crime No.34/2024 Jewargi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 of IPC.

¶23

The Jewargi Police registered a case on the basis of the complaint filed by one Mehir Mojumdar, wherein it was alleged that his niece Riya was married to the petitioner herein about two years prior to her suicide on 28-1-2024. The petitioner was working as a RMP Medical Practitioner at Biral K village of Jewargi Taluka and after marriage, the deceased Riya was staying with him.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶25

Thereafter, there was rift between the couple and the accused started harassing the deceased Riya and as such she returned to her parent’s house at Bisnapur of Nadiya District of West Bengal. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the house of father-in-law and brought the deceased Riya back. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant

¶26

came to know from the father of the deceased Riya on 29.01.2024 that Riya has committed the suicide by hanging herself and such information was given by none else than the petitioner herein. Therefore, he came to Jewargi and came to know that the deceased Riya had died by hanging herself between 7.30 pm to 9.30 p.m. on 28.01.2024 and the body was removed from the noose by none else than the petitioner. He also came to know that the body was kept in cold storage at Mortuary of the District Hospital, Kalaburagi. The reason for suicide is said to be the alleged illicit relationship of the petitioner with others.

¶27

After registering the case, the investigating

¶28

officer visited the Mortuary and has conducted the inquest

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶30

by requesting the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 31.01.2024. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶31

Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he had abetted the commission

¶32

of the offence of the suicide of the deceased Riya. It is contended that the petitioner himself had informed about the death of deceased Riya to his father-in-law and there was no motive or intention to push the deceased Riya to commit suicide. Therefore, there is no reason to believe

¶33

that the petitioner had committed the abetment of the suicide of deceased Riya and as such he may be granted regular bail.

¶34

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the investigation is still going on and Investigating Officer, acting on the basis of the complaint filed by the uncle of the deceased Riya is investigating the case and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶36

Only question that arise is whether the

¶37

petitioner is entitled for the regular bail or not?

¶38

While hearing the present petition, this Court noticed that the incident had taken place on 28.01.2024 and the body was shifted to the Mortuary of the District Hospital, Kalaburagi. However, no case was registered for unnatural death. When the FIR came to be registered on 31.01.2024, already 3 days had lapsed. It was also noticed that the Jewargi Police Station was issued with an intimation by the concerned hospital. The details were called for and the investigating officer has submitted the details.

¶39

A careful perusal of the records would show that soon after the deceased Riya committed suicide and the petitioner came to know about her death, he had informed the parents of the deceased. It is also evident that the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital. Curiously the copy of the hospital intimation received by the investigating officer do not bear any date. However,

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶41

the correspondence of Jewargi Police Station would show that on 29.01.2024 the body was sent to the cold storage at Jewargi. It is also evident that the case of unnatural death was never registered by the Jewargi Police despite it had the knowledge of the suicide by the woman, who was married about two years prior to the incident. Obviously, the mandate of law that the UDR has to be registered in case of death of woman, whose marriage was within seven years from the date of death was not followed by the investigating officer. The case came to be registered after 3 days only when the uncle of the deceased came from West Bengal and lodged the complaint on 31.01.2024. The inquest was conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 31.01.2024. The report submitted by the investigating officer would show that the photographs of the deceased was taken even prior to she was released from the noose after hanging. It is not known from where this photograph was taken by the investigating officer.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶43

A perusal of the records would show that there

¶44

is no material which would prima-facie show that the accused had abeted the suicide of the deceased. None of the material show that the accused had the intention to force or push the deceased to commit a suicide. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be granted the regular bail. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed.

¶47

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that the petitioner shall furnish personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Committal Court / Sessions Court with following conditions:

¶48

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or witnesses directly or indirectly in whatsoever manner;

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2366 CRL.P No. 200134 of 2024

¶50

ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer as and when required.

¶51

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Raju Biswas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Biswas 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

Shivu @ Shivukumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sabanna Vs the State

Kashinath and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka