Mani And Others vs State

G.Chandrasekharan, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C altered to 306 IPC in Crime No.403 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, petitioners are falsely implicated in the suicide of the deceased in a case registered in Crime No.403 of 2023 for the offences under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C altered into Section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that, first petitioner is the sister in law of the deceased and she lives in a separate house and she has nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the deceased with her husband. However, she is falsely implicated. Petitioners are in Judicial Custody from 24.07.2023. Thus, he seeks bail to the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ intervenor strongly opposes the petition on the ground that, petitioners had constantly harassed and ill treated the deceased. Their constant ill treatment, abuse and cruelty had driven the deceased to commit suicide. This being the case of abatement to commit suicide with punishment of 10 years imprisonment, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the first accused had taken place on 22.08.2022. Since the date of marriage, there was continuous harassment by the accused demanding dowry, body shaming, abuse and cruelty against her. That was the reason why the deceased was forced to commit suicide. Deceased had left the suicide note implicating the petitioners for the deceased to take a decision to commit suicide.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The FIR allegations show that, the marriage between the deceased and the first accused had taken place one and half years before the date of giving the complaint. Deceased is a BA., BL., Graduate. When she wanted to go for work, she was prevented by her husband. Therefore, there was a difference of opinion between the deceased and her husband. Deceased was living with her parents. Defacto complainant's elder daughter delivered a baby and she was also living with the defact complainant. On 24.07.2023 at about 10.a.m., defacto complainant's husband went for KMCH Hospital. At about 10.30 a.m., they called deceased for having breakfast, but she did not respond. They went to the room in the first floor and found that the deceased died hanging. In the said circumstances, complaint was given.

Suicide Note left by the deceased claims that, her husband, his parents and her sister in law and her husband were alone responsible for her to take the decision to commit suicide. It reveals that the first accused contacted the father of the deceased with a request to get the deceased married to him. The first accused's mother was against the marriage. First accused convinced his mother saying that family of the deceased would provide 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and a car. Thereafter, first accused's mother accepted for marriage. Even before the marriage, father of the deceased paid Rs.10 lakhs to first accused. However, that amount was returned by the first accused. Next day of the marriage, first accused scolded her saying that she has not brought anything as sridhana, therefore deceased's uncle, aunty, mother and sister had gone to Coimbatore and bought 20 sovereigns of gold jewels. In September, she got conceived. Her mother in law doubted that, how she was able to conceive so soon and abused her suspecting her character. She compelled her to attend the family feast despite her ill health. She was not permitted to go to her parents house. She was compelled to get blessings of elders. As a result, she suffered mental stress. It was found that, child in womb had no proper brain growth, resulting in abortion of foetus. Even thereafter, she was compelled to stay in the marital home. She was abused that she was pregnant even at the time of marriage. They promised to find separate residence, but they did not do that. Deceased's sister in law used to body shame her pointing out her skin colour, and dressing manners. Her husband is unemployed and he would be always in the house of her mother in law. Her sister in law's husband used to speak ill of the deceased and her mother. Her husband threatened that deceased's parents should seek apology to him, or else, he would not live with her. When her father was ill with kidney problem, nobody had cared to visit him. It appears that, these are reasons for the deceased to commit suicide.

In the suicide note, this Court finds there are specific instances alleged against the second petitioner about harassment, mental cruelty, body shaming etc. However, this Court finds no allegations made in the FIR or in the suicide note as against the first petitioner. There is no material available as against the first petitioner, to form an opinion that he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to first petitioner alone. At the same time, for the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner.

8.Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, Tiruppur and on further conditions that :-

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00.a.m., until further orders.

[c] the first petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] the first petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed in respect of first petitioner and dismissed in respect of 2nd petitioner.