Bengaluru, September 8, 2023 – The XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Chandrashekar @ Raju, who is accused in a case of abetment to suicide registered at the Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station. The petitioner, the brother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Sowmyashree, sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The order, pronounced by Sri Manjunatha, the presiding Judge, highlights the gravity and seriousness of the offense alleged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and emphasizes the necessity of the petitioner’s custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.
Case Background and Allegations
The case, registered as Crime No. 327/2023, was initiated based on information provided by Smt. Shashikala, the 57-year-old mother of the deceased, Smt. Sowmyashree. The petitioner, Chandrashekar @ Raju, aged 45, is the brother of Smt. Sowmyashree’s husband, Lokesh.
According to the complaint, Smt. Sowmyashree’s marriage with Lokesh was solemnized on December 7, 2007, and they had been residing in Krishnappa Layout, Bengaluru, since 2016. The core of the accusation against the petitioner revolves around property disputes and relentless mental harassment.
The informant alleged that the accused (Chandrashekar @ Raju) and others were harassing her and her husband by refusing to give them their rightful share in a house property or their share of money. Furthermore, the petitioner allegedly began harassing the deceased and her husband, Lokesh, over a decision by Lokesh to let out a house on lease, even going to the extent of lodging a police complaint against the couple at the Mandya Police Station.
The complaint states that due to this continuous and severe mental cruelty—specifically the withholding of money and property share—Smt. Sowmyashree felt deeply “hurt and disgusting” and tragically committed suicide by hanging herself at her residence on August 21, 2023, between 9:30 AM and 4:30 PM. Crucially, the prosecution placed reliance on a death note left by Smt. Sowmyashree, which explicitly named the accused as the “route cause of her death” due to the constant harassment meted out to her and her husband.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale for Dismissal
Appearing before the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, the petitioner’s counsel contended that Chandrashekar was innocent, falsely implicated, and ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
However, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections, arguing against the maintainability of the petition.
The Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the FIR and case papers, noted that the investigation into a serious offense under Section 306 of the IPC was not yet complete. Section 306, which deals with abetment of suicide, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and a fine.
Applying well-established principles of law governing bail, including the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee, the Court focused on several critical factors: the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or witnesses.
The Judge observed that a prima facie case was clearly disclosed by the records, suggesting that the petitioner had caused the death of the deceased by subjecting her and her husband to severe mental harassment over property matters.
The Court made the following key observations to justify the dismissal:
- Prima Facie Case: The available records, including the death note, indicate a prima facie case that the accused mentally harassed the deceased, leading to her suicide.
- Investigation Stage: The investigation is still ongoing, and if anticipatory bail is granted, there is a high likelihood the petitioner may abscond, tamper with prosecution witnesses, and ultimately hamper the investigation.
- Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: Given the serious nature and gravity of the offense, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is deemed “necessary for the purpose of investigation” to uncover all facts and circumstances surrounding the abetment.
- Gravity of Offence: The offense alleged constitutes a serious crime against a woman and society, making it imperative to exercise judicial discretion judiciously, not as a matter of course.
The Court explicitly stated that it could not, at this nascent stage of the investigation, conclude that the petitioner was innocent of the offenses alleged against him. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, thereby denying Chandrashekar @ Raju the pre-arrest bail he sought. He now faces the prospect of arrest and subsequent judicial proceedings.