KABC010081592024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2907/2024 Petitioners 1.N. manjula W/o B. Puttaswamy, a/a 38 Yrs., 2.B. Puttaswamy S/o Bettaiah, a/a 42 Yrs., Both are r/a No.95, Munihuchappanapalya, Near Muneshwara Temple, Dasanapura, Bangalore-562 123. (By Sri/Smt:M.S. Sanjaykumar, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Chennamanakere Achu Kattu P.S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed bail petition U/ s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release them on bail consequent upon their Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 remand to judicial custody in the case registered against them by the respondent Police on the complaint of Sri A. Preetham, a/a 20 Yrs., who is the son of deceased-Smt. Nirmala, for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC in their Crime No.62/2024 in the interest of justice. 2.On the basis of the complaint Sri A. Preetham, a/a 20 Yrs., the respondent police have registered case against the petitioners and others in their Crime No.62/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 20.03.2024, and produced before the concerned Magistrate, and they were remanded to judicial custody. 3.The petitioners claim innocence and contending that they have as been falsely implicated in the said case and further contending that they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. They are ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this court, therefore the petitioners have prayed for allowing this petition. 4.The Learned Public prosecutor has filed objection to this bail petition in detail along with the report of I.O., and case diary by submitting that this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for the reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials on record. 6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are as under: Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024

1. Whetherthepetitionershavemadeout

sufficient grounds for their release on bail atthisstageasprayedfor?

2. Whatorder?

7.This Court has answered the above points are as under: PointNo.1 : IntheNegative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the respondent police have registered case against the petitioners in crime No.62/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.306 of IPC. The fact that the complainant/informant is the son of the deceased-Smt. Nirmala , which is not in dispute. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons have borrowed rupees ten lakhs sixty thousand the deceased as hand loan, which was borrowed by the deceased from others on interest, and when the deceased demanded for repayment of the loan amount, the accused persons refused to pay the same by stating she do not have any document and cannot do anything to them, and also asked her to take when they pay or kept quiet and also abetted the complainant to die by stating that if she hangs herself they will not pay the amount. On 17.03.2024 the deceased called the accused to pay the money, they refused to pay the same by stating that to do whatever she wants. The deceased by feeling hurt and disgusting committed Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 suicide by hanging by leaving the death note on her left hand. It is the case of the informant that the cause of death of his mother deceased-Smt. Nirmala was due to the abetment of the accused No.1 to 4 who borrowed money from her refused to repay the same by cheating. Accordingly, complainant has lodged the complaint before the respondent police against the accused persons.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is

no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioners, only on suspicious ground the case has been registered against the petitioners on the false complaint of son of the deceased, and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is also contended that though there is no averment in the complaint regarding the abetment by the petitioners and in spite of the same, they have been falsely implicated with a sole intention to harass and humiliating on false complaint that has been registered. The petitioners hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society without any criminal antecedents, ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court and abide the conditions. Hence, they prayed to allow this petition. 10.Per contra it is vehemently argued and contended in the objection by the prosecution that prima facie it discloses that petitioners are involved in committing the alleged offence and at this stage of the case the petitioners cannot be considered unless a full-fledged trial is commenced. Further it is argued and objected that the investigation is still pending and Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 involvement of the act of petitioners in committing the alleged offences. Further it is contended that at this stage if petitioners are released, they will not available for investigation. The Learned Public Prosecutor in the detailed objections contended that the investigation is still in progress regarding the mental harassment that lead to the cause of death of deceased-Smt. Nirmala, mother of complainant, and at this stage if the petitioners are enlarged on bail there is every chance of absconding from the jurisdiction of this court, intimidate and tamper the complainant and other material witnesses. Hence, submits that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. 11.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR and relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, it discloses that the offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable U/s.306 of IPC, The offence U/s.306 of IPC, which is though not punishable with death, but with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and triable by this Court. 12.On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioners have cuased mental harassment by refusing to pay the money borrowed from her. It is vehemently argued by the petitioners counsel that there is no whisper of any allegation regarding harassment to the deceased, but at this juncture the said fact cannot be Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 taken into consideration, when there is direct allegation against the petitioners for having subjected the deceased to mental harassment by availing hand loan from her and abetting her to die, committing of suicide by the deceased by leaving the death note on her left hand. The I.O., has prayed in his report that they required time for investigating the case. It is pertinent to note that at this stage if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is likelihood that they might be abscond and would not be available for investigation causing delay in filing the charge sheet. It is equally important to note and consider the serious objection of the prosecution that if the petitioners are released before the investigation complete, they would influence and tamper the prosecution witnesses. 13.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. Further as per the materials on record it discloses that the petitioners were was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024 and till date their custody is continued. It is pertinent to note that the investigation of the case is not yet completed, and the report submitted by the investigation officer, which prima facie discloses the involvement of petitioners in committing the alleged offence. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioners are released on bail, it may cause delay in investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 CRI.L.J.2678: AIR online 2021 SC 205 in Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2021(arising out of SLP(Crl.,) No.1530 of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos.24659 and 41412 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021 (State of Kerala V. Mahesh). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that when the incident is heinous, the Court has to consider the material on record, which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner/accused has committed the alleged offence. The Court should not proceed to grant bail by considering the period of custody of the accused till the investigation completed. In the instant case also the investigation is yet to be completed and charge sheet is not filed. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioner is released on bail, it may cause delay in investigation and there is possibility of accused influencing the witnesses . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977. In para 11 of the said judgmenttheCourthasheldthat: while granting bail the Court should exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter of coerce. ItisalsonecessaryfortheCourtgrantingbail toconsider. (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supportingevidence. Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC598:2002SCC(Cri)688that “Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be sustained. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee;(2010)14SCC496:(AIR2011SC274) 9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the basis principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, amount other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an applicationforbailare: Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 (i)Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence; (ii)natureandgravityoftheaccusation; (iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if releasedonbail; (v)character, behaviour, means, position and standingoftheaccused; (vi)likelihoodoftheoffencebeingrepeated; (vii)reasonableapprehensionofthewitnessesbeing influenced; and (viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grantofbail. 14.The fact of the case, it is found that investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is not filed. Further the gravity of the offence and allegation made against the petitioners in committing the alleged offence has to be taken into consideration. In view of the above said reasons the petitioners haves not made out any ground for their release on bail. Hence, for the above reasons and discussions this bail petition does not survive for any consideration on merit. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

15. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:- Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 5th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.25 15:59:37 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2907/2024