Valsaraj v. State of Kerala and Maickle v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5031 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.225/2020 OF Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **VALSARAJ AGED 42 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN THANDIAKKAL HOUSE, MOORKKANIKKARA DESOM, KOZHUKKULLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR 680751** **BY ADV. SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031** **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5696/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.5696 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.225/2020 OF Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MAICKLE AGED 56 YEARS NALLORKALAM HOUSE, THOZHIPURA PO, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD 678101** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5031/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 ## **COMMON ORDER** ## **[ Bail Appl..5031/2020, Bail Appl..5696/2020 ] Dated this the 21st day of October 2020** Applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The applicants in BA No.5031/2020 is the first accused while the applicant in BA No.5696/2020 is the second accused in Crime No.225/2020 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2020 at about 7.20 a.m, the dead body of one Kunhumon was recovered from near the Kurumali Railway over bridge and the police registered an FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C for death under suspicious circumstances. Subsequent investigation revealed that the deceased had committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused persons, Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the applicants herein. He has left behind a detailed suicide note which states that he was committed suicide because of the intimidation and the threats of the applicants. 3. The prosecution case is that the first accused and the deceased had allegedly entered into an agreement for supply of burnt bricks to the 1[st] accused. A brick kiln was set up by the deceased in the property belonging to the 2[nd] accused. An advance of Rs.10 lakh was also paid by the 1[st] accused towards the value of the bricks to be supplied. The bricks were not supplied and a dispute arose between them. The applicants realized that the kiln was being operated not by the deceased but by his brother-in-law and that he did not have the intention to return the money or supply the bricks. In consequence of that, the deceased was allegedly threatened by the accused persons and they had also stated that physical Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** harm would be caused to him in case he did not return the money. A civil suit was also allegedly filed by the 1[st] accused before the Munsiff court at Chittur as O.S No.103/2020. 4. The applicants would contend that they are innocent and the allegations are all untrue and that they only had business transaction with the deceased and because they realise that the intention of the deceased was not to perform in accordance with the agreement, the 1[st] accused had filed a civil suit and had only forced the deceased to comply the terms of the agreement which was entered into between them. According to the applicants they did not do anything to abet the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore, they pray for anticipatory bail. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The argument of the learned Public Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Prosecutor is that, in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, there is a clear indication that, threat was done by the applicants and they had stated that they would cause physical harm to him in case he entered the property. The brother-in-law of the deceased had nothing to do with it and it was a transaction entirely entered into between the applicants and the deceased. Therefore, the applicants will have to be subjected to interrogation regarding the entire transaction between the deceased and the applicants. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the applicants may not be granted the liberty of being released on an anticipatory bail. 7. After having heard the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the applicants and also the learned Public Prosecutor, it has to be observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** act or acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of an abetment of suicide remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In case of acquisition of abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act or acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide, and such an offending act ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence 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. I would rely upon the decision of Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 8 Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana [2019 KHC(6714)],**_ wherein the above proposition has been upheld by the Court. 8. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the instance case, it is seen that the applicants had entered into an agreement for supply of bricks with the deceased. He had also received Rs.10 lakhs as advance payment towards the value of bricks. Naturally the persons who had paid money would be anxious to either get back the money or get the supply of the goods which was allegedly agreed to be supplied. Neither was admittedly forthcoming. The fact regarding filing of a civil suit before the Munsiff court indicates that the applicants have no intention to go for an extra judicial remedy to realise the amount which was paid to the deceased. The fact that the deceased had acted in a particular manner was not something which was in the hands of the Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** applicants. The applicants had forced the deceased to comply with the agreement which was entered into between them. That alone may not be a reason for finding that the applicants had abetted commission of suicide. It is true that the deceased had several liabilities as is explained in the suicide note read out by the learned Public Prosecutor. He had made arrangements for repayment of some of them. It is also stated that the deceased had actually borrowed the money from the applicants and the agreement was a concocted one. All those matters would be required to be investigated. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicants will have to co-operate with the investigation and there is no reason to believe that they may not do so. They do not have any other criminal antecedents which was intimidating the deceased to take extreme steps that he did. Under the circumstances, I find that the Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** applicants are entitled to an anticipatory bail with certain conditions. 9. In the result the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions; - i. They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier. ii. They shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses. Bail Appl..Nos.OF 5031 2020 & 5696 OF 2020 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** iii. They shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period. In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. ## **Sd/-** ## **ASHOK MENON** **JUDGE** SPK