The significance of specific details in the death note in inferring abetment under Section 306 IPC and the imposition of stringent bail conditions to address prosecution's apprehensions.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.113/2020 of HSR Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

2. I have heard Sri Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 virtually and Sri V.S.Hegde, the learned SPP-II for the respondent-State.

3. The first information was given by one Abhishek, the son of the deceased viz., N. H.Vanajakshi, who committed suicide. While untying the dead body from the knot, he saw death note left behind by the deceased. In the death note three names were mentioned to be responsible for the suicide. It appears that there was a financial transaction between the deceased, the petitioner-accused No.1 and other accused persons.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that contents of the complaint do not indicate that there was an abetement by the petitioner-accused No.1 to the deceased to commit suicide and in that light, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted. It is his further submission that the death of the deceased was noticed when the body was hanging and immediately they have shifted the body to the hospital, where it was declared that the deceased was brought dead. Thereafter the body was taken to the house and intimated to the police on the next day. It is his further submission that under similar circumstances, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.4770/2020 disposed of on 13.10.2020 and accused No.4 has been released on bail in Criminal Petition No.4704/2020, disposed of on 1.10.2020 and on the ground of parity the petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint go to show that on 28.7.2020 the complainant had been to the house at about 2.00 p.m. and had lunch along with the deceased. He spoke to the deceased for some time and thereafter she went for sleep. At that time, she has not stated about any financial transaction with the petitioneraccused No.1 If really the suicide was because of the financial transaction definitely the deceased could have discussed the said aspect with the complainant. It is his further submission that the death note which is intending to be relied upon is also fabricated one. It is his further submission that petitioner-accused No.1 is highly respectable person and is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned SPP-II has vehemently argued and submitted that there is a direct allegation as against the petitioner-accused No.1 for having been involved in the crime. It is his further submission that since 2002 some financial transactions were existing and in spite of repeated requests made by the deceased, the petitioner-accused No.1 has not made any payment and even when she has called and asked for payment, he told her to die and do whatever she wants and he would not pay the amount that itself goes to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is his further submission that the deceased has left a death note by mentioning the name of the petitioner-accused No.1 and the said death note itself is self-explanatory to show that it is the petitioneraccused No.1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased. It is his further submission that till the investigation is under progress, death note has been sent to RFSL and the report is yet to receive as whether the death note is in handwriting of the deceased or not. It is his further submission that the antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1 are also not good, he has been involved in some of the criminal cases i.e., in Crime Nos.240/2018 and 258/2020. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused