AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are considered together, as they are filed by the accused in the same case. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 11306/2013 was accused 3, and the petitioners in the connected petition Crl. P. No. 11305/2013, are parents of the accused No. 1.
It transpires that accused No. 1, was married to one Nidihi, who was the daughter of the complainant, in the year 2011. The accused No. 1, was an Accounts Officer working at Bangalore and was living with his wife at Bangalore. It was alleged that there was ill-treatment and cruelty of such a degree by the petitioners that the daughter of the complainant had withdrawn from the society of accused No. 1, and had come back to the complainant''s home and was residing there, for more than one month prior to the incident. It transpires that on account of the constant cruelty meted out to her by all the accused, she had committed suicide, and therefore, a case was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C. for brevity). It is in that) background that the parents of accused No. 1, have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. While the accused No. 1, had filed a regular bail petition, before the Court below, which has been rejected.
Given the circumstances of the case, since the deceased was not in her matrimonial home, when she committed suicide, the fact that accused No. 1, who had recently married her and that the death was unnatural, will not by itself establish that the accused had together committed the offence alleged. Therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by the Court below, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another Vs. State of Haryana, , where all the Courts in India have been directed to frame charges u/s 302 of IPC, in case of a charge sheet for the offence alleged u/s 304-B of the IPC. This cannot be applied across the board and it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioners held entitled to the relief of bail. In the event of arrest of petitioners in Crl.P. No. 11305/2013, they shall be enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing a self bond each for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a solvent surety each for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without; seeking leave of that Court.
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Authority as and when required for the purposes of investigation.
iii) The petitioners shall not interfere with the trial, threaten or induce any witnesses for the prosecution.
The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 11306/2013, shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a solvent surety, for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.
ii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.
iii) The petitioner shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.