Singireddy Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6658 AP

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6915 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal

Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.‟ in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioner/

Accused No.7 in Crime No.287 of 2022 of Nandigama Police Station,

Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased who is

the elder daughter of the de facto complainant had completed

intermediate. Because of financial problems, the de facto complainant

took loan through credit cards and she failed to pay the loan amount.

Then the officials of SBI bank who are accused had come to the

complainant house to recover the loan amount and insulted her and her

daughters using filthy language and threatened to kill them. Due to which

the deceased got depressed and committed suicide by hanging herself

and died. Hence, the present complaint.

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

and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been

raised in the grounds, contended that on a plain reading of the complaint

no ingredients attracting Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner are

found. It is further contended that, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.125 of

2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, seeking grant of bail and the

same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that

the investigation is in progress. It is also contended that the petitioner is

languishing in jail since 41 days. Hence, prays this Court to consider this

application.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all the

details. He further submits that though the substantial investigation is

completed, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may not co-operate with

the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. A perusal of record, prima facie shows that the allegations made

against the petitioner do not attract the offence punishable under Section

306 IPC.

7. Section 306 IPC reads as under:

"306. Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in M. Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu1

while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC held as under:

"Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable".

9. Taking the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the material available on record into consideration and since the

petitioner is languishing in jail for the last 41 days and as substantial

investigation is completed and prima facie the ingredients of Section 306

IPC are not found at this stage, by taking into consideration the

judgment referred supra and as A5 and A6 were granted bail by this

Court in Crl.P.No.6880 of 2022, by order dated 08.08.2022, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however by duly taking the

(2011) 3 SCC 626

apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into

consideration, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond

for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like

sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandigama;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer,

Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, thrice in a week i.e. on every

Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday between 12.00 noon and 04.00 p.m., till

filing of the charge sheet; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the de facto

complainant or her family members and witnesses under any

circumstances in this regard and any such attempt shall be construed as

an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the

evidence; and

(iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the

prosecution evidence. They shall make themselves available to the

investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper

investigation in this case.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above

conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the prosecution is at

liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or

restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further

investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as

expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in

the above Criminal Petition and shall not have any bearing in any other

proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9th September, 2022.

GBS