Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 4359 OF 2023 CRIME NO.710/2023 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ARJUN H.B AGED 23 YEARS S/O. HAJI H.A, ALAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAMKAL , PANDAKASALA, CHIRAYINKEEZHUPO, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANAMTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304 BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU RESWIN A. KHADIR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ADV SEETHA S - SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2023 This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.710/2023 of
Chirayinkeezhu Police Station. The aforesaid crime was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in connection with the suicide committed by a 16 year old girl, the defacto complainant's daughter. Subsequently, the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated, and the petitioner was implicated as the accused.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the deceased were in a love affair. When the family members of the deceased came to know about the said relationship, they
objected the same. Consequently, the deceased wanted to discontinue the said relationship. The said matter was intimated to the petitioner; thereupon, the petitioner allegedly threatened the victim by stating that he would publish the messages and letters sent by the deceased to him and thereby harassed her. It :3 : is alleged that on account of the anxiety due to the same, the deceased committed suicide. The petitioner was implicated as an accused in such circumstances. As the petitioner apprehended the arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.
4. Heard Sri. M.T. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. According to him, even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship. The only allegation based on which the petitioner was made as an accused is that he allegedly threatened the victim that the messages and letters would be shared by him, when the petitioner was informed of her decision
to end the relationship. It is pointed out that, under no circumstances the said act can be treated as something based on which the offence under Section 306 could be attributed. For attracting the said offence, there must be an allegation of the commission of an act with the intention to lead the victim to the :4 : commission of suicide, and such an act, with that intensity, is lacking even as per the prosecution case.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
would stoutly oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that there are statements made by the victim's mother and one of the victim's relatives who had seen the victim, along with the
petitioner, on the day she committed suicide. As per the statement of the said relative, on the same day of the death of the deceased, the said witness happened to see the victim talking to the petitioner and from the facial expression of the victim, she could gather that the petitioner was communicating something which was against the wish of the victim.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also places reliance
upon the statements of the mother as well as the father of the victim, wherein they have mentioned about the relationship between the petitioner and the victim, the decision taken by the victim to end the said relationship, the response of the petitioner when the decision of the victim was communicated, etc. There is also a reference in the statement about the threat allegedly made by the petitioner to the effect that he would share the messages
:5 :
and letters sent to him to the others for lowering the victim's dignity. According to the parents of the victim, this ultimately led the victim to commit suicide. By highlighting these aspects, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. It is also pointed out that if the release of the petitioner is ordered, it would adversely affect the investigation now in progress.
8. I have gone through the records and heard the
contentions raised from both sides. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the materials placed before me indicate that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship. A decision was also taken to terminate the relationship with the victim. The main allegation based on which the offence under Section 306 is included in this case is that the petitioner had allegedly made a threat that the messages and letters sent by her would be shared. However, on going through the contents of the statements and considering the circumstances under which such a threat was allegedly made, it can be seen that those were made apparently with the intention of continuing the relationship. To be precise, the impression that could be gathered is that the petitioner wanted to continue the relationship, and he wanted to
:6 :
persuade the victim to withdraw the decision which she had taken. It is difficult to conclude that the petitioner wanted the victim to commit suicide. As far as the offence under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is concerned, to attract the same, the accused must have committed some act with the intention of persuading the victim to commit suicide. In this case, from the materials now placed on record, it cannot be prima facie concluded that he had done any act with the intention to compel the petitioner to commit suicide. One of the crucial ingredients for attracting Section 306 is the “abetment”, which is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and it reads as follows:
“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly,-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly,-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing or that thing. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
When examining the nature of allegations against the petitioner, as revealed from the documents before me, it is doubtful whether :7 : the acts committed by the petitioner can be treated as “abetment” as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the offence would be attracted against the petitioner. However, I do not intend to adjudicate upon the said question as the matter is even now
under investigation. But, when considering the aforementioned aspects, I find that it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice that some orders to protect the personal liberty of the petitioner are passed, by ensuring the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.
(ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. :8 :
(iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until the filing of the final report.
(v) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.
(vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact
any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. It is clarified that the observations made in this order with regard to the offence under section 306 of the IPC, were for the sole purpose of deciding this bail application and under no :9 : circumstances the same can cause any prejudice to any of the parties, including the prosecution. It shall be open for the investigating officer to continue the investigation untrammelled by any of the observations in this order. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd