AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the victim i.e., the wife of the complainant was working in the Co-operative Society, wherein she was subjected to harassment making false allegation of misusing of funds i.e., she was involved in misappropriation of gold and she has sent mobile message. On 20.03.2024, this petitioner came and scolded her and due to the said humiliation, she took the extreme step of committing suicide and hence the police based on the complaint dated 25.03.2024, registered the case in Crime No.25/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The matter is still under investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner, who is accused No.2, has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegation is made against the Manager and this petitioner who is the Assistant. In the earlier complaint it is stated that the complainant came to know that his wife left the office and immediately he rushed to the house and found that an attempt was made to commit suicide and immediately she was taken to the hospital, wherein the doctor declared that she is no more. The learned counsel submits that the second complaint is dated 25.03.2024, wherein different version is given making an allegation against this petitioner as well as other two persons and hence the very case of the prosecution is doubtful and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and hence the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that a specific allegation is made in the complaint that a false allegation is made against the wife of the complainant that she misappropriated the funds as well as gold. The allegation is that this petitioner along with other accused abated in committing suicide and hence there is a prima facie material against the petitioner and hence he is not entitled for bail.
Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, at the first instance in terms of document No.5, an allegation was made that the victim left the office suddenly and made an attempt to commit suicide. On perusal of the complaint, an averment is made that due to work force and for some other reason she may have committed suicide. But the version in the second complaint dated 25.03.2024 is different, wherein an allegation is made that the complainant was present at the time of the incident and this petitioner along with other accused persons came to the house and scolded the complainant’s wife and due to humiliation she took the extreme step of committing the suicide. There are two different versions, one is on the date of the alleged incident and other one is five days after the incident. When such being the case, whether the petitioner has committed the offence of ingredients of Section 306 of IPC or not and whether they barged into the house of the complainant invoking the ingredients of offence of Section 448 of IPC or not, will be considered during the course of investigation. Having taken note of the fundamental differences in the earlier statement and subsequent statement, it is appropriate to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and this Court can safeguard the interest of the prosecution by imposing certain conditions. Since this petitioner is a Assistant in the District Co-operative Bank of Dakshina Kannada, the question of fleeing away from justice does not arise and the petitioner can be directed to co-operate in the investigation. This Court already granted bail in favour of accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.No.3835/2024 vide order dated 16.05.2024 where similar allegations are made and this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.3 on the ground of parity.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.25/2024 of Shankaranarayana Police Station, Udupi District, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself 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) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner 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.