Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Manish Chandak v. The State By Chandra Layout Police Station

Manish Chandak v. The State By Chandra Layout Police Station

(High Court Of Karnataka)

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9594/2021 | 12-01-2022

1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.236/2021 registered by the Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant in the complaint dated 19.11.2021 made an allegation against the petitioners and others that all of them have caused abetment in committing the suicide of the complainant’s husband since there were some transactions and cheques were also obtained and insisted to pay the money or otherwise they are going to take away the life of the family members. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is no nexus between committing the suicide as well as the allegations and only general allegations are made in the complaint and unless there is a proximity to cause of death for taking extreme step for suicide, it does not attract Section 306 of IPC. The learned counsel submits that the only allegation made in the complaint is that her husband had disclosed the same to her on the very same day. The learned counsel submits that accused No.5 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 in Crl.P.No.9447/2021 and a copy of the same has been produced on record and prayed to enlarge these petitioners on bail on the ground of parity.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that on the same day the deceased had informed the complainant about subjecting her husband for threat as well as obtaining the documents and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioners.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the complaint averments, no doubt, in the complaint several names are mentioned and also an allegation is made that cheques and agreements are obtained and documents are registered in favour of the petitioners but no such material are placed before the Court for having obtained the documents and also while invoking Section 306 of IPC, there must be proximity to cause of death and taking the extreme step. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.9447/2021 dated 05.01.2022 wherein this Court had enlarged the accused No.5 on bail. Hence, looking into the contents of the complaint and the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint and taking into the note that accused No.5 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C on the ground of parity.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.236/2021 registered by the Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a 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 concerned Investigating Officer.

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

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Advocate List
  • SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE.

  •  

  • SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH&nbsp
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/KarHC/2022/73
Head Note

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 306 — Abetment to suicide — No nexus between committing suicide and abetment — No material placed before court for having obtained documents — Prima facie case against petitioners — However, accused No.5 already enlarged on bail by Supreme Court — Petitioners enlarged on bail on ground of parity