Abdulbari Abdul Razaq Mulla vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the Additional State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

The allegations made against this petitioner is that a person by name Ashok Dhondiba Salunke, resident of Artal village, Athani Taluk filed first information to the police stating that on 30.12.2013 in the morning when the complainant was in his house, he received an information that his brother Govindarao had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance and died in front of Military Canteen building, Athani. The complainant went there and observed that his brother was lying dead. After post mortem examination, it was clarified that he died due to consumption of poison. It is stated that the deceased has left a death note stating that the accused had issued two cheques to one Adiveppa, since the cheques were bounced, Adivepa had entrusted the cheques to the deceased to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner in fact, had threatened the deceased and forcibly taken away those cheques from the deceased. On account of the same, the deceased became dejected in life and decided to commit suicide and accordingly, he committed suicide. On these "allegations the petitioner was arrested on 31.12.2013 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate and, remanded to the judicial custody and since then he has been in judicial custody. The death note which shows that the petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased. As the accused has taken the cheques belonging to the Adiveppa, caused mental torture to the deceased.

At this stage, the entire materials on record shows that with what intention the accused has snatched the cheques from the deceased has to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial. Section 306 of IPC says whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The abatement itself presuppose that there must be an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused persons/petitioners that their act definitely make to drive a person to commit suicide. Further added to that the petitioner''s intention must be explicitly shown that he was intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the knowledge or intention on the part of the accused has to be attracted this provision. Herein this particular case, snatching of the cheques from the deceased whether it was only the intention of the accused to have the cheques or whether he had further intended that due to snatch of the cheques, the deceased has to commit suicide. Therefore, at this stage on the basis of the aforesaid materials, it cannot be ascertained whether there was any such intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner. However, the prosecution, if able to establish these two things during the course of the trial, then only they can succeed before the trial Court. The petitioner has already been arrested on 31.12.2013 and he has been in judicial custody since then. On these observations, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition under Sect on 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent. surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the committal Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in 15 days before the Investigating Officer till the chargesheet is filed or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.

(iii) The petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.