RANJITH CHACKO @ MANU v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.770/2024 OF Thrikkodithanam Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONER/S:** **RANJITH CHACKO @ MANU, AGED 49 YEARS AS/O CHACKO,MAMBARAVIL HOUSE, NADAKAPPADOM BHAGOM,MAMMOOD P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686536** **BY ADVS. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY MATHEW DEVASSI ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **-------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5452 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1[st] accused in Crime No.770/2024 of the Thrikkodithanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 306, 201 and 404 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the 1[st] accused, who is the proprietor of a concern named MC Bricks and Interlock Tiles, had employed a lady named Bincy (deceased). The 1[st] accused and the deceased developed an out of the marriage relationship. Subsequently, the 2[nd] accused too joined the concern as an employee. Later, the 1[st] accused and the 2[nd] accused developed a relationship, but found the deceased as an BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 3 obstacle. Accordingly, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the deceased committed suicide on 01.05.2024. Thereafter, the 1[st] accused took away the electronic gadgets and personal belongings of the deceased from her flat and concealed the same for the purpose of destroying evidence. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S. the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The deceased was only an employee of the petitioner. She committed suicide for reasons only known to her. It is well settled in a catena of decisions that there should be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 4 which has led the deceased to commit suicide. The very fact that the Police had initially registered Crime No.512/2024 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., subsequently Crime No.769/2024 under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C., and later the present crime which proves the hollowness in the prosecution. The 2[nd] accused, who has allegedly played a similar role as that of the petitioner, has been granted an order of pre-arrest bail by the Court of Session, Kottayam as per Annexure-V order. The petitioner is at par with the 2[nd] accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.06.2024. Even though the Investigating Officer had sought for the police custody of the petitioner, the same was rejected by the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Annexure-III order due to the illness of the petitioner. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 5 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter-alia, contending that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The first crime was registered due to the unnatural death of the deceased. Subsequently, when the defacto complainant (the brother of the deceased) came to learn that the petitioner was the cause for the death of the deceased, Crime No.769/2024 was registered and recovery was effected. It is during the course of the investigation and interrogation of the petitioner that his complicity came to light. There are incriminating materials to prove that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The 2[nd] accused was granted an order of pre-arrest bail, because she is a lady and she had no major role in the incident. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the 2[nd] accused. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. It is trite law that at the stage of considering a bail BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 6 application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken. There is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail is granted or refused, particularly where the accused is alleged to have committed a serious offence. (Read **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,** 2004 (7) SCC 528). 7. In light of the exposition of the law, I refrain from embarking upon an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case so as to avoid prejudice to either side. To avoid repetition, I also desist from reiterating the prosecution allegation, which has already been narrated in the 2[nd] paragraph. 8. The predicate offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 of the IPC. It is profitable to refer Section 306 of the IPC which reads as follows: “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”. BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 7 9. The necessary ingredients to bring an act or omission by a person charged with the offence under S.306 are well - settled in a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. In a recent decision in **Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan,** 2021 (19) SCC 144, the Honourable Supreme Court has explained the above provision in the following lines: "12. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to commit suicide is considered to be an offence under S.309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under S.306 IPC. 13. Though, IPC does not define the word "suicide" but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is "self - killing". The word is derived from a modern Latin word "suicidium'', "sui" means "oneself" and "cidium" means "killing". Thus, the word suicide implies an act of "self - killing". In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. 14. S.306 IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under S.107 IPC which reads as under: BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 8 "107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "instigate" is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in **Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,** 2001 (9) SCC 618 **)** , has defined the word "instigate" as under : "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act"." 16. The scope and ambit of S.107 IPC and its co - relation with S.306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In **S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,** 2010 (12) SCC 190), it was observed as under : BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 9 "25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under S.306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." (emphasis given) ## 10. Again, in **M. Arjunan v. State, represented by** ## **the Inspector of Police,** 2019 (3) SCC 315 the Honourable Supreme Court has held thus: "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under S.306 IPC". (emphasis supplied) ## 11. In **Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of** **NCT of Delhi),** 2009 (16) SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of abetment has observed that, to attract abetment, there should be an BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 10 intention to provoke, incite or encourage doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidable pattern is different from others. Each person has his own idea of self - esteem and self - respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 12. In the backdrop of the above legal principles, let us now delve into the facts of the present case to prima facie ascertain whether the ingredients of the offence under S.306 have been made out. 13. On a meticulous scrutiny of the materials on record, it can be seen that the allegation against the petitioner is that he initially had an extramarital relationship with the deceased. Indisputably, the deceased was not the wife of the petitioner. She is said to be a married lady and having two children in her wedlock. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have developed a relationship with the 2[nd] accused, which was not to the BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 11 liking of the deceased, and she objected to the relationship. Then, the accused 1 and 2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 14. Going by the materials on record and the law referred to in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the view that the petitioner can only be placed at par with the 2[nd] accused. Apparently, the Court of Session has already granted an order of pre-arrest bail to the 2[nd] accused as per Annexure-V order. I do not see any reason why the petitioner should not be granted parity with the 2[nd] accused. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of whether the offence under Section 306 of the IPC would be attracted or not, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary, especially since the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 15. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 12 fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 16. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 17. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 13 18. On an overall consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and in view of the findings already rendered above and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 33 days, investigation in the case is practically complete and the 2[nd] accused has been granted an order of pre-arrest bail as per Annexure-V order, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. The BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 14 petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. and also as and when directed by the Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.770/2024; - ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - iv. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kottayam without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court; - v. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 15 - vi. In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - vii. Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - viii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. - ix. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/24.07.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 5452 OF 2024 16 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5452/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure -I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE THRIKOODITHANAM POLICE DATED 3/7/2024** **Annexure -II** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL CHANGANASSERRY DATED 3/7/2024** **Annexure -III** **A TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 3/7/2024 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI, CHANGANASSERRY** **Annexure -IV A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT** **Annexure-V A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-07-2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 1988/2024 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM**