Allowed

Dr. Matta Jyothirmai, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2021CRLP/1290/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted anticipatory bail to Dr. Matta Jyothirmai under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was apprehended to be implicated in the suicide of her husband under Section 306 IPC but was not named in the FIR. The court found no evidence of abetment in the record.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner on execution of personal bond and other standard conditions.

Dr. Matta Jyothirmai, Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

t3ls8 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THI] HON'BLE JTISTICE G.SRI DE,VI

¶6

CRIMINAI, PETITION NO: 1290 OF 2021

¶7

Bet$,een:

¶8

Dr. lVlatta .lyothirmai. Wo. Late Dr. P. Amar Babu.

¶9

Petitioncr

¶10

.'\NT)

¶11

-fhe State of Telangana, tkough its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabad, for Station House Olficer, Sangareddy (Rural) Police Station

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition arid the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in favor of the ;retitioners and to direct the Station House Officer, Sangareddy Police Station (Rural). Sangareddy District for release of the Petitioner in terms of the said anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in the Crime No. 7 of 2021;

¶14

The pctition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed tl.rcrein. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. and ofthe Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

'I j {I

(qs#I

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G, SRI DEVI

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1290 of 202L

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the^{Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant anticipatorl, bail in the event of her arrest in conrtectiorL with Crime No.7 of 2C21, of Sangareddy Rural Police Station, Sangareddy District, which was registered against the parents of the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I. P.C.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased lodged a complaint on 07.01..2021 stating that the marriage of his son Dr. P. Amar Babu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), with the petitioner was performed about five years back. The marital relationship was cordial for about two years. Out of wedlock thelr blessed with a child by name Loukya ancl thereafter disputes arose between the couple. The petitioner and her parents caused several troubles to the deceased. The deceasecl was also infected with COVID-19 in the month of July, 2020 and he was admitted in rhe Conlinental Hospital and the petitionerr and her parents did rrot even enquire about the health condition of the deceased. The petitioner went to her parents house about five months back after an altercation with the deceased. l'hereafter, the famiiy members of the deceased went to the house of the parents of the petitioner at Uppal and tried to convince the petitioner, but the

3rr

parents of the petitioner did not heed their request and also scolded them. Due to that the deceased underwent mental trauma and committed suicide by consuming poison.

¶29

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶30

Leamed Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a qualified post graduate doctor and working as Civil Assistant Surgeon (Radiologist) in Area Hospital, TS Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Zaheerabad. It is further submitted that the deceased always used to assault the petitioner frequently without any justifiable cause and he was abusive in his language and violent in his behaviour towards the petitioner. The deceased also used to threaten the petitioner to commit suicide severai times in order to meet his monitory demands and other comJorts from the petitioner. On 12.08.2018, the deceased telephoned to the maternal uncle of the petitioner and threatened that he would commit suicide with a suicide note implicating the petitioner and her parents if his demands were not met with. From his uninterrupted behaviour, the deceased appeared as a psycho, egoistic, erratic, sadistic, iil-tempered person suffering from acute inferiority complex, male chauvinism etc. On 19.11.2019, the deceased assaulted and verbally abused the petitioner in filthy language and left the house without information and stayed away from home for 12 days. The elders of both sides had traced him and counselled

6-rh.

him on 07.72.2019 facilitating his return to^{home. In view of} persistent demands made by the deceased,^{the petitioner paid him} an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs to invest in^{Sisurakshahospital,} Sangareddy between December, 201,9 to^May, 2020. It^{is also} submitted that in the month of July , 2020, the deceased was infected with COVID-I9 and suffered for about two weeks and at that time the petitioner alone attended him physically in the hospital till his total recovery, while interacting with the duty doctors of the hospital continuously. On 19.08.2020, the deceased had driven out the petitioner from his house ancl as such the petitionr:r has no other alternative except staying with her parents since 20.08.2020 On24.08.2020, the petitioner lodged a complaint with Uppal Police Station. The Uppal Police, conducted counselling to the deceased and the petitioner on27.08.2020 and11..09.2020 and the petitioner requested the police to wait for some more time to register the F.l.R in anticipation of change in the attitude of the deceased, but there was no changr:. On L3.12.2020 a meeting was conducted by the eiders of both the families, but as there was no change in the adamant and erratic attifude of the deceased, the petitioner could not venture to;oin him for the makimonial life. While things stoocl thus, the petitioner received the shocking news of the suicicle committed by her husband at his residence leaving a suicide note It is also submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the,feceased was not abetted for committing suicide from the sidr: of the

*r#

petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence, It is the apprehension of the petitioner that she may be implicated in the case at the instance of her father-in-law. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not have any crimhal antecedents and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed in the event of her enlargement on anticipatory bai1. It is also submitted that this Court also grantecl anticipatory bail to the other accused vide order dated 12.01.2021 passed ln Criminal Petition No.167 of 2021.

¶39

¶40

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶41

A perusal of the averments in the first information report would show that the deceased committed suicide in his house and the petitioner was not present at that time

¶42

Now, the issue is whether the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC are made out or not against^the petitioner. In order to constitute an offence under Section 306^IPC, the prosecution has to initiallv prove whether there was any abetment. Section 107 IPC which defines abetment^{reads as under:}

¶43

"107.^{Abetmentof a thingtA person abetsthe doingof a} thing, who-

¶44

Firstly+Instigates any person to^do that^{thing; or}

&* /

Seconilly i-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or ilLegal omission tnkes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶49

Thirdly.-lntentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, tfu doing of thnt thing;

¶50

Explanation 1-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, aoluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or proatre, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."

¶51

A reading of Section 107 of I.P.C. would show that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., there should be intentional aiding or abetting a person in comnrission of suicide. Admittedly, the petitioner is not arraigned as arL accused in the First Infr:rmation Report. Further, a reading of the report as well as the suicide note do not anywhere indicate acts of abetment or aiding by the petitioner when the deceased committed suicide. Moreover, the other accused, who are the parents of the petitioner herein and the inlaws of the deceased, against whom serious allegations arer leveled in the suicide note, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court rtide its orde,r, dated 12,01,.202-1. passed in Cr1.P.No.167 of 2021.

¶52

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶53

Accordingly, the Criminai Petition is allowed and the petitioner namely Dr.Matta Jyothirmai, shall appear br:fore the Investigating CXficer i.e., Station House Officer, Sangareddy Rural

!.-rn!r\r-<

Police Station, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order and on her appearance, in the event of arrest, she shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶58

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each to the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶59

(i0 The petitioner shal1 not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Investigating Authority.

¶60

(iiD The petitioner shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious investigation. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation.

¶61

(i") The petitioner shall also comply with the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.

¶62

SD/- R. KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT

//TRUI], COPYII

SECTI OFFICER

To,

1 , The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶67

The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Rural Police Station, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶68

i. Tr.vo CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶69

one C(l to Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

¶70

one Spare copy

HIGTI COUR:T

(;sI).,t

DATE:12-03-2021

()RDER

CRL.P. NO. 1290 0F 2021

¶78

PT]TITION ALLO\'ID

¶79

( cE( (r+.<br>o 1 2 yA$f;rf' n,/
4

F{;FATC ti r:O

Dr. Matta Jyothirmai, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Matta Jyothirmai, v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohd. Raoof Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Raoof Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana

Paidi Raju Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Vaishnavi Associates Vs B.S. Vimala

Gujju Devadanam Vs Dasari Balaiah

T. Appala Swamy Vs The State of Telangana