V.Naveen Kumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 747 AP

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.502 of 2021

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest

bail to the petitioner / Accused in the event of his arrest in

connection with Crime No.1 of 2021 on the file of Bhavanipuram

Police Station, Vijayawada City, wherein the petitioner is alleged to

have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

2. A complaint was lodged by the father of deceased stating

that the deceased is aged about 25 years and she is pursuing her

second year MD (Pulmonology) course in Katuri Medical College,

Guntur. Every day she used to go to college in car. On 31.12.2020

at 7.00 p.m. he returned to his house from his office and his

daughter was at home. At around 7.30 p.m. the father of deceased

and his wife wanted to go to his mother-in-law's house and asked

the deceased to come along with them, but she refused to come

stating that she had some work. At around 9.15 p.m. they came

back and found the deceased hanging herself to the ceiling fan.

Immediately, he called 108 ambulance and also informed to

relatives. The ambulance came and the concerned has confirmed

that she is no more. Later when they verified the room, the laptop

was on the Diwan cot and besides the laptop, there is a diary and

they found a page from the diary was loosen, wherein it is written

in the handwriting of deceased that "sorry daddy, I love you daddy,

naku nuvvante chala istam daddy, amma naku nuvvante chala

istam, byeamma, bye nanna, naveen valle chachipotunna". Initially,

the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and later it

was altered to Section 306 of IPC and the petitioner is arrayed as

accused.

3. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if all the

allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, they do not

constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC, because the

ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted. He submits

that in the complaint it is not stated that the petitioner induced or

abetted the deceased to commit suicide and since both the

petitioner and deceased were studying in Katuri Medical College,

the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. He relied on the

judgments of this Court in V.Shankaraiah Vs. State of A.P.1;

wherein it has been held that aiding suicide by a person can only

be by positive acts of assistance and there is no averment in the

charge sheet or material on record to show that the accused

therein either induced or aided the deceased to commit suicide. He

also relied on another judgment of this Court in Bura Manohar Vs.

State of A.P.2 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Sonti

Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another3.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed

before this Court, statements of Kurlagunda Yadunandan (LW12),

Gudala Sri Naga Maithry (LW13) and Thulluru Lathasri (LW14)

2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.)

2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 184 (A.P.)

(2009) 1 SCC 554

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which reveals that the

petitioner and the deceased were having physical relationship and

the petitioner also had relationship with other women. The

deceased informed to Thulluru Lathasri (LW14) that when she

asked the petitioner about marriage, he refused and scolded her

stating that "chachipo, nuvvu chachipothe naku elanti samasya

undadu chachipo" and LW14 tried to console her, but as she was

on duty, she told the deceased that she would call her again. Later,

the petitioner called her and stated that deceased died by hanging

herself. The other witnesses who were examined have also

categorically stated about conduct of petitioner and how he used to

move closely with women and how he used to treat them.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the

investigation is in progress and there are grave allegations. The

evidence so far collected shows that the petitioner is responsible

for the suicide. He submits that all the above witnesses are

pursuing their studies in the said college, where the petitioner is

also pursuing his course and if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest

bail, the prosecution apprehends that he may threaten the

witnesses, tamper with the evidence and hamper with the

investigation process, as such the petitioner is not entitled for pre-

arrest bail.

7. This Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to applicability of

Section 306 of IPC to the facts of the case. All the judgments relied

on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at the stage of

bail and the reliance is misplaced. In the case on hand, prima

facie, the investigation reveals that the deceased left a suicide note,

wherein it was clearly mentioned that because of the acts of the

petitioner, she committed suicide and the evidence so far collected

also shows the involvement of petitioner. The investigation is at

crucial stage and this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail

to the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor there is every scope of hampering the

investigation process and influencing the witnesses, if the

petitioner is enlarged on bail.

8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall

stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

10th February, 2021

PVD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Dismissed

CRIMINAL PETITION No.502 of 2021

10th February, 2021

PVD