David William Dsouza vs State Of Karnataka

G. Narendar, J

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.

Petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order of the trial court rendered in Crl. Misc. 36/2020 whereby the court of the Principal

District & Sessions Judge, Udupi was pleased to reject the petition preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that the petitioner be enlarged on

bail in Crime No.29/2020 of Shirva Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 and 201 of I.P.C.

The facts in brief are that the deceased Mahesh D’Souza was ordained as a Priest and functioning as the Principal of the Don Bosco CBSC

English medium school and Junior Priest in the Shirva Parish. That he committed a suicide by hanging himself on 11.10.2019 between 9.05 p.m. and

1.00 a.m on 12.10.2019. That the respondent police investigated the matter and two I-phones of the deceased and I-phone of one Priya D’Souza

and Vivo Phone of the petitioner herein and the CCTV footages of the camera of the Church were seized and sent for FSL examination. That the

investigation was commenced belatedly as doubts were expressed about the death of the said father Mahesh D’Souza and hence investigation

came to be entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police. That the respondent police started investigation and in the course of investigation, it was found

that the last call that was received by the deceased Mahesh D’Souza was from the petitioner and that the call details were extracted and it has

been alleged that the conversation was in Konkani language and that the petitioner had taken umbrage to the fact of the alleged illegal relationship

between the deceased Priest Mahesh D’Souza and the petitioner’s wife Priya D’Souza. It is alleged that the petitioner had threatened the

deceased that either he should put a rope for his neck and the same would also be done to Priya D’Souza failing which, he would spoil his

reputation within half an hour and he would do the same to his wife and if the deceased did not do so, he would finish off the deceased. It is alleged by

the respondent police that the deceased agitated by the said allegations, took the extreme step of ending his life by hanging himself to death.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is a motivated one and that the petitioner belongs to a political party and that

he has been elected as a President of the Panchayat for the last three terms and that he is rending yeomen service and that in the present times and

circumstances, the services of the petitioner is more so required. That the allegations that the petitioner abused the deceased are all false and that the

investigation is misdirected with the intention of helping the accused who have already been booked, that is one Devin D’Souza and Ashwin

Aranha, for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC in respect of the death of the said Priest Mahesh

D’Souza. That the complaint against the petitioner was registered belatedly and the same is motivated.

Per contra the learned High Court Govt. Pleader would contend that there are about 23 cases and that the said cases had been reproduced by the

trial court and that if the petitioner is enlarged, he would attempt to destroy the evidence and tamper with the witnesses. Per contra, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the petitioner has been continuously elected as President of the Panchayat is suffice to

demonstrate that the petitioner is a person with strong roots and that a mere perusal of the list of cases alleged against the petitioner would

demonstrate that all the cases are politically motivated and he would further submit that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases except the

last one and that the trial court is also in progress in the said case. He would submit that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the instant case and

that the petitioner is not a person who would flee from justice. He would further contend that the very fact, that 23 cases are registered and he being

acquitted in 22 of these, is a proof of the fact that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and that not in a single case has he been alleged to have even

attempted or even tampered with the witnesses. The submission merits consideration.

The fact remains that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a crime for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC which is neither

punishable with death nor imprisonment of life. The fact that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen is demonstrated by the number of cases which have

been registered against him of which, he has successfully faced trial in the courts without trying to abscond. There is no allegation that the petitioner

has either attempted to abscond or tried to protract the prosecution launched against him.

In that view of the matter, the petitioner being a citizen with strong roots in the society and having a standing in the society and also taking into

consideration the factum of delay in registration of complaint against the petitioner and the fact that the offence alleged is neither punishable with

death nor imprisonment for life, this court is of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is

directed to be enlarged on bail subject to the following condition;

i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court and shall report before the jurisdictional police station on the 2nd and 4th Sunday of

every month, for a period of six months.

ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and furnish two sureties for the like sum.

The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail forthwith.

Copy of the release order to be forwarded to the jail authorities immediately.

Four weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed herein. In the event, the petitioner fails to comply within four

weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the order shall stand revoked automatically and the respondent police are at liberty

to seek for his remand.

Petition ordered accordingly.