N. VENKATESHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in Cri. P. No. 2698 of 2014 and petitioner in Cri. P. No. 2699 of 2014 is accused 2. The case is registered at the instance of the complainant, who is father of the deceased. The complainant has stated that her daughter committed suicide on 4-4-2014 by pouring kerosene on herself and it is happened because of abetment made by the petitioners. The deceased reported to the complainant that on 29-3-2014 at about 7.30 p.m. while she was returning home, the accused uttered some bad language and the same was informed to the parents. On information, they went to the house of the petitioners and the petitioners caused insult against the family members of the deceased, which was the cause for death of her daughter. Accordingly, complaint was filed, which is registered in Crime No. 105 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences as it is alleged against the petitioners does not attract Section 306 of IPC for the reason that there is no close proximity between the abetment said to have been caused by the petitioners and by filing memo, learned Counsel produced copy of admission ticket issued by the Karnataka State Open University against accused 3 and he has to appear for the examination on 30-6-2014. If the bail is denied, there is likelihood of damage to his career; he never alleged anything except stating that the complainant has taken away the property and the deceased returning home at late night. This itself is not sufficient to abet the crime.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on reading of the complaint it does not attract Section 306 of IPC. Daughter of the complainant died not only because of the alleged words against her, but also reckless utterances against the family members of the deceased. When an offence is alleged against the petitioners, the overt act should attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC abetting the death of daughter of the complainant, which was happened on 4-4-2013 i.e., about 5 days prior to the incident. The reason for delay for the extreme steps taken by the daughter of the complainant is not forthcoming. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following: