Sayeeda Falaknaaz vs State Of Karnataka

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.

Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide by hanging on 17.05.2019. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint. Based on it, F.I.R was registered on 18.05.2019 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. According to the complainant, the deceased was found holding a mobile and a chit in his hand. During the course of investigation, the mobile and a chit containing the death note are said to have been recovered from the pant pocket of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that the copy of the said death note was not furnished to the petitioner along with the chargesheet.

Learned High Court Govt. Pleader, however, pointed out that the original death note was sent for FSL and necessary endorsement has been made in the chargesheet to the effect that the same would be produced before the Court after return of the same from the FSL. As such, much cannot be made of non-furnishing of the copy of the said note to the petitioner.

The copy of the death note is now produced by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader wherein the deceased has squarely implicated the petitioner as well as her parents and her brothers in causing provocation of the deceased to commit suicide. In spite of the said death note, the investigating agency appears to have not taken any steps to secure the presence of the petitioner during the investigation, apparently for the reason that the presence of the petitioner was not necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the said death note. According to the prosecution, the death note is in the hand writing of the deceased.

In any case, the investigation having been completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and the other accused, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this juncture. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected by the investigator, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

In view of these facts, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date of this order and on her appearance, she shall be enlarged on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-

a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b. The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required;

c. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner;

d. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the trial Court without prior permission.