Karnataka High Court
Mayuk Mukherjee vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MAYUK MUKHERJEE
S/O. DEBARATA MUKHERJEE
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A. 102, A1, SHARAVATHI BLOCK
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 547.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED
BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 037.
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP;
SMT.J.DEEPA, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
-2-
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT
REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN BY DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT-MARATHAHALLI POLICE TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE CR.NO.47/2023 (CC
NO.53472/2023) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
MARATHAHALLI POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC
1860 ON THE FILE OF THE 29TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU
CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 06.07.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER: 28.07.2023
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in
Crime No.47/2023 registered at Marathahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant has filed I.A.No.1/2023 to assist the
prosecution. The same is allowed.
3. I have heard the learned Senior counsel
appearing for petitioner, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the State and learned counsel appearing for
the complainant.
4. Crime No.47/2023 of Marathahalli Police Station
is registered against the petitioner and his parents for the
offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC,
on a complaint lodged by the father of deceased-Smt Piyali
Mukherjee, wife of the petitioner. Charge sheet is filed
against the petitioner alone, for the offence punishable
under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
5. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that,
marriage of first informant's daughter -Smt Piyali
Mukherjee was solemnized with the petitioner/accused
No.1 on 05.02.2021, as per Hindu Customs. After the
marriage, the couple started residing at Flat No.201 of one
Shradha Palmera Apartment, situated at Kaverappa
Layout, Panathur, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Accused No.1
developed illicit relationship with another girl and coming
to know about it, deceased requested him to change his
attitude and to lead a marital life as a dutiful husband, but
he refused to listen to her and therefore the deceased was
mentally disturbed. Further, petitioner was not
responding to her calls and messages. The deceased used
to note down the mental and emotional harassment meted
to her in a diary. Feeling hurt and depressed on account
of the mental and emotional harassment, she committed
suicide on 24.02.2023 by hanging herself in her
matrimonial home.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of
the alleged offence and there is absolutely no material
collected by the prosecution to show that the petitioner
was having an illicit relationship with another girl. He
contends that the nature of allegations and the facts of the
case do not disclose the ingredients of the offence now
alleged against the petitioner. He contends that there is no
earlier complaint against the petitioner regarding any sort
of harassment given to the deceased and the complaint
was lodged after two days with an ulterior motive, against
the petitioner as well as his parents making various
allegations which are found to be false and the names of
the parents of the petitioner were dropped while filing the
charge sheet.
7. The learned Senior counsel has further
contended that the essential ingredients of the offence
now alleged against the petitioner are not made out and
considering the facts of the present case, at no stretch of
imagination it could be stated that the petitioner has
intentionally aided or abetted the deceased to commit
suicide. Pointing out to the sequence of events, he would
contend that the couple travelled together to Kolkatta to
attend a wedding and on 16.02.2023 the deceased alone
travelled back to Bengaluru since her company required
her to work from home at Bengaluru itself. The deceased
was supposed to travel back to Kolkatta for her brother's
wedding on 10.03.2023. She committed suicide on
24.02.2023. He contends that if there was matrimonial
discord between the couple, the petitioner cannot be said
to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
8. The learned Senior counsel has contended that
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet
the deceased to commit suicide is a must to attract an
offence under Section 306 of IPC. He has relied on
plethora of judgments in support of his contention.
9. The learned Senior counsel further submits
that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.03.2023.
Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.
Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety
to ensure his presence before the trial Court and will abide
by any conditions which may be imposed by the Court.
Accordingly, sought to allow the petition.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant has filed statement of objections. It is
contended on behalf of the respondents that there is
substantial evidence collected against the petitioner to
show that the deceased has committed suicide on account
of the mental and emotional harassment meted to her by
the petitioner. It is contended that the accused had an
extra marital affair and deceased has confronted him
many times and asked him to change his behavior and live
a happy married life, but he refused to mend and instead
stopped conversing with the deceased and reply to her
messages. It is contended that the deceased went
through a lot mentally after she discovered about her
husband's extra marital affair and even her in-laws did not
bother to advice their son and change his behavior to live
life as a dutiful husband. It is contended that all this
behaviour has induced the deceased to take the extreme
step and thus the petitioner has abetted her to commit
suicide.
11. It is also contended on behalf of the
respondents that the petitioner is not a permanent
resident of Bengaluru and therefore it will be difficult to
procure his attendance before the trial Court. Further that,
he is a highly influential person and he is capable of
tampering the witnesses and destroying the evidence.
Hence, they have sought to reject the petition.
12. The learned counsel on both the sides would
rely on the contents of whatsapp messages exchanged
between the deceased and one Shubham Chandra, a
relative of the deceased. At this juncture, while
considering a bail petition, this Court cannot go deep into
the matter so as to evaluate the evidence on record or to
conduct a mini trial. It is well settled that while
considering a bail petition, Court should exercise its
discretion in a judicial manner and not as a matter of
course, but cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles for grant or refusal of bail. At the same
time the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of
the punishment, danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing if released on bail, position and standing of the
accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced
are the criteria to be considered.
13. In the case on hand, the relationship between
the party is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the
petitioner on 05.02.2021 and they were living together in
a flat in Bengaluru. The main allegations are that the
petitioner was having an extra marital affair with some
other girl and inspite of repeated requests, instead of
mending his behavior, he stopped conversation with the
deceased and refused to attend her phone calls and
messages. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner has
mentally and emotionally harassed the deceased and
thereby abetted her to commit suicide.
14. In 'Ude Singh V. State of Haryana' reported
in '(2019) 17 SCC 301', it is held that "in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be cogent and
convincing proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Whether a person has abetted
in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only
be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each
case. It is observed in the said judgment that the
question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such
cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts
and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing
more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
- 10 -
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment
or suicide. Each case is required to be examined on its
own fact while taking note of all the surrounding factors
having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused
and the deceased. There is no specific theorem or
yardstick to estimate or assess the same'.
15. For the purpose of disposal of this petition it
may not be necessary to discuss the various
pronouncements of the Honb'le Apex Court, referred to by
the learned Senior counsel, since each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
In the case on hand, the allegations are that the petitioner
was having an extra marital affair and he refused to
change his behaviour and to live life as a dutiful husband
and refuse to mend and instead stopped talking to the
deceased and answering her calls and replying her
messages. Whether by such acts the petitioner has
abetted the deceased to commit suicide is a matter which
has to be established during a full fledged trial. The
- 11 -
prosecution has to place all the evidence before the trial
Court to establish the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since
01.03.2023 and he is not required for further
interrogation. Investigation is completed and charge
sheet is filed. The apprehension of the prosecution that
the petitioner may tamper the prosecution witnesses and
flee from justice etc can be met with by imposing suitable
conditions. This Court is of the considered view that
further detention of the petitioner is not required in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused in Crime No.47/2023 of
Marathahalli Police Station, is directed to be enlarged on
bail, subject to following conditions:
(1) Petitioner shall execute a bond in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One
Lakh only] with two sureties for the
likesum, out of which one shall be a
- 12 -
local surety, to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
(2) Petitioner shall furnish his contact
number and proof of his residential
address and shall inform the I.O/Court
if there is change in the
address/contact number.
(3) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses/evidence either
directly or indirectly.
(4) Petitioner shall appear before the trial
Court on every date of hearing without
fail, unless exempted for any genuine
reason.
(5) Petitioner shall cooperate for the early
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
