Rajesh P.B. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Bail Appl..No.7371 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.210/2019 OF Chittarikal Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **RAJESH P.B. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. BABU P.K., PONNAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KURUKOTTY, ALAPADAMBA VILLAGE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031** **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO,210 OF 2019 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 326** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. No.7371 of 2019 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. No.7371 of 2019** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The subject crime in this case is Crime No.210/2019 of Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasargode District, was initially registered under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on account of the unnatural death/suicide of the lady victim involved in this case on 05.09.2019 at about 2.30 p.m. The instant FIR has been registered under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C on the same day (05.09.2019) at about 6.05 p.m.. The police after investigation has altered the offence to that as per Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner aged 23 years was earlier having a love affair with the lady victim aged 22 years and that they were college-mates and that later, she decided to marry another person and even thereafter, the petitioner was consistently harassing her and troubling her and even telling some of her close friends that she had sexual relationship with him and that her affair with him was continued even after she was engaged to the other B.A. No.7371 of 2019 3 man and further that he had threatened her that he will disclose their affair to her proposed bridegroom and that due to his constant threats and harassments, she has committed suicide on the abovesaid day and that the petitioner has thus instigated and abetted her to commit suicide and hence, the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are baseless and that it is true that the petitioner was having a love affair with the lady victim and the same was opposed strongly by the parents of the victim and that the marriage of the lady victim was already fixed with another person. The abovesaid allegations made by the prosecution cannot be said to even remotely amount to an act said to have been done by the petitioner to instigate the lady victim to commit suicide and that the prosecution has no materials even remotely to make out the case that the petitioner has instigated the lady victim to commit suicide, so as to disclose the serious offence as per Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that none of the vital ingredients and parameters for the offence of abetment as per Sec.107 of the Indian Penal Code and that of abetment to commit suicide as per Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code are made out B.A. No.7371 of 2019 4 in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard place reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in cases as in _**Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.**_ [2002 SCC (Crl.) 1141], _**Krishnadas v. State of Kerala**_ [2017 (2) KLT 579], _**Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2016 (12) SCALE 414], _**Harikrishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.**_ [2019 (3) KHC 437] & _**M.Arjunan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police**_ [2019(3) SCC 315]. Wherein, the ingredients and parameters for the offence of abetment as per Sec.107 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence of abetment to commit suicide as per Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code are dealt with, etc. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a detailed statement of the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2019. The learned Prosecutor has made detailed submission with reference to the averments contained in the said statement filed by the Investigating Officer. It is pointed out that at the time of the investigation, the inspection of the house of the victim was conducted and two notebooks presumably written as the diary by the deceased was recovered and on the basis of the diary notes, the Investigating Officer could get clear inferences about the involvement of the petitioner herein. Annexure-R1(a) is said to be the B.A. No.7371 of 2019 5 diary notes of the deceased lady victim. That the diary notes shows that the petitioner has consistently contacted the deceased and had regular telephonic calls with her, even after their relationship was stopped and after she was engaged to another man. The investigation has disclosed that the lady victim had decided to stop the relationship with the petitioner and her parents had decided to conduct a marriage of her with one Dileep and the engagement was also duly conducted and the marriage was proposed to be conducted on 03.11.2019. That after fixing the date of her proposed marriage with Dileep, the petitioner started blackmailing and mentally torturing the lady victim to compel her to withdraw from the marriage proposal. Further that, Annexure-R1(a) would clearly show that the lady victim was subjected to constant mental torture,etc. and that though the lady victim has gracefully not mentioned the name of the person who was harassed her. The investigation material so far collected would clearly pinpoint that the person against whom she has expressed her agonies in Annexure-R1(a) note is the petitioner herein. Further that, Annexure-R1(a) diary notes would show that towards two head pages, it was written in the handwriting of another person and it is found that the said person is the lady by name Anjali Raj, who is one of the friends and relatives of the deceased victim B.A. No.7371 of 2019 6 Anjana and when Anjali was questioned, she has revealed that once she along with another friend had stayed in the house of the deceased victim and that she is aware of the constant harassment and torture meted out to the victim by the petitioner and that she had wrote in the diary of Anjana asking her to disclose everything to Dileep, to whom her marriage was fixed, so that he could understand her problems. Further, Anjali has told the Investigating Officer that at the time she met the deceased victim on that occasion, another common friend was there and that Anjali has made the writings in the diary, so that Anjana alone will come to know of it. As otherwise, if Anjali had spoken about it to the victim, the other common friend would have heard it, etc. 6. Further it is pointed out that the investigation has disclosed that one Neena Joseph is the closest friend of the deceased victim and on recording the statement of Neena, she has disclosed that the petitioner had informed Neena that the petitioner had sexual relationship with the deceased and that the said disclosure was made by the petitioner with an intention to pressurize the deceased victim. That as Neena refused to believe the allegation made by the petitioner, the petitioner even went to the extent of making a telephone conference call with Neena and Anjana and he had asked the deceased about the sexual relationship, thereupon, B.A. No.7371 of 2019 7 Anjana had admitted the same over the phone about her sexual relationship with the petitioner. Neena has also stated that the petitioner used to threaten the deceased stating that he will disclose their relationship to parents and to Dileep, with whom she was engaged. Neena has further stated that it is only because of the constant threat given by the petitioner, the victim has committed suicide and that deceased Anjana used to attend the telephone calls of the petitioner only because of constant threat given by him that he will disclose the relationship to her parents and to Dileep, with whom she was engaged. Annexure-R1(b) is the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer from Neena Joseph. 7. The Investigating Officer has further pointed out that yet another strong ingredient alleged against the petitioner is that he has got to the extent of sending messages to the phone used by the victim's mother stating that the petitioner has already sent audio messages to Dileep and that he will call to her house and further that he has sent the messages to the phone used by the victim's mother as follows: "ന�ന� ന�റ�യകള� രണപ�നര ന�റ� ന�റ�യ�ക�യള കള� എല��ര� അറ�യ�". The examination of the mobile phone of the petitioner would reveal that the phone number of Dileep was already recorded by him in the B.A. No.7371 of 2019 8 petitioner's phone and that the petitioner has sent voice message to Dileep, to whom the deceased was engaged. One of the voice message sent by the petitioner was traced out in the mobile and it is stated that the petitioner has sufficient evidence to substantiate the relationship between the petitioner and the victim and he is ready to forward the same to Dileep, if required. Thus the Investigating Officer would point out that the petitioner was constantly threatening and torturing the victim Anjana and in furtherance of that he has acted upon the abovesaid messages both to the mother of the victim as well as Dileep, to whom she was engaged. Further that, the examination of the Call Data Records (CDR) details has shown that on the day of the suicide committed by Anjana on 05.09.2019 at about 2.30 p.m., the petitioner had prior thereto sent 9 telephone calls and 5 messages to the victim on the same day and more particularly, the said calls were very lengthy and the last calls from the petitioner was just half an hour before the death of the petitioner. That this would clearly probabilise that the petitioner was constantly harassing, blackmailing and torturing the deceased victim and that his constant acts in that regard has instigated her to commit suicide. The abovesaid aspects are all the more clear from the diary notes made by the deceased victim in Annexure-R1(a) and the fact B.A. No.7371 of 2019 9 that she has not expressly named the petitioner in her diary notes, is also clearly showing the graceful character of the victim and that she was forced to write down the diary notes, as she could not contain the pressures mounted on her by the conduct of the petitioner, etc. 8. On the basis of the abovesaid details, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the Investigating Agency has secured concrete and substantial materials, which would clearly pinpoint that on account of these acts of the petitioner, the lady was instigated to commit suicide and the abovesaid series of incidents would clearly show that the petitioner has guarded her to commit suicide. Further it is pointed out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly necessary and imperative in this case and that the details of the conversations that took place between the parties on the day of the suicide is highly relevant and various other aspects has also to be verified and ascertained in the investigation process and that this Court may not grant anticipatory bail. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid materials will not in any manner remotely establish any of the ingredients of the abovesaid offence and further that the petitioner would fully co-operate with the investigating process and that his custodial interrogation is not necessary and that he may granted B.A. No.7371 of 2019 10 anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions. So also this Court is not now presented with objective materials and other attendant circumstances to overrule the abovesaid consistent stand of the Investigating Officer that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and imperative. After hearing both sides and after anxious consideration of the various aspects, this Court is constrained to take the view that this is not a fit case in the matter of exercise of extraordinary discretion granted under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner would immediately surrender before the Investigating Officer, so that his bail application would be considered and decided by the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court concerned on the same day of his production, after the completion of the interrogation process. This Court has only held that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail and all other remedies open to the petitioner in law will not in any manner be hindered or affected. Further it is made clear that the abovesaid observations made by this Court hereinabove are made only for the limited perspective for consideration of the anticipatory bail B.A. No.7371 of 2019 11 plea and the said findings and observations will have no baring in all other proceedings in relation to the very same case which will have to be decided at the appropriate time in appropriate proceedings, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. 11. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not in a position to countenance the abovesaid plea made by the petitioner, at least for the limited purpose of consideration of the anticipatory bail plea, that the Investigating Agency has not been able to secure any credible and concrete materials to connect the petitioner with the offence of abetment to commit suicide as per Sec.306 of the IPC. Hence, in the light of these aspects, the plea for anticipatory bail fails and the same will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd