The court considered the remote role of the petitioners in the alleged instigation to commit suicide and granted them anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

C M Joshi, J. - Heard, Sri. N. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared with NOC of earlier counsel and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. Perused the records available before this Court.

2. The factual matrix leading to the case is that the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Crime.No.405/2022 registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was working as a Handloom employee in Bengaluru and his parents are from Kodagu District. It is stated that around eight years back his brother Srinivas was married to Accused No.1 Sandhya and out of their wedlock they had a child aged about 6 1/2 years. The deceased Srinivas was working as a Medical representative and his wife Sandhya was working in a private company. It is contended in the complaint that there was a quarrel between the deceased Srinivas and accused No.1 Sandhya frequently for silly reasons and also for financial reasons and the accused No.1 used to assault and abuse the said Srinivas in front of father, mother and younger brother who are petitioners herein. They use to warn him that if he takes any steps to give any complaint then they will kill him. Therefore, Srinivas has not lodged any complaint in the police station. There was a panchayat between the two families in respect of husband and wife and elders had advised them to live their life peacefully.

4. The complaint alleges that recently the accused No.1 used to call the petitioners herein and they used to assault over deceased Srinivas. It is stated in the complaint that about two months prior to the incident, the parents of the complainant were also called to the house of the deceased Srinivas and when they were staying there, accused No.1 use to instigate the deceased to commit suicide by drowning him in a well and such instigations were at the instance of parents of petitioners herein. Complaint was also filed in the police station and even the police had also advised the accused to behave properly.

5. It is stated in the complaint that on 13.11.2022 at about 8.00 a.m. the maternal uncle of the complainant called him and informed that on previous night the deceased Srinivas had sent death note of 10 pages and he is not receiving the phone call. They rushed to the house of the deceased Srinivas and when there was no response, they some how opened the door and came to know that the deceased Srinivas and his mother had committed suicide by hanging. The death note was also found in the hall of their house. Therefore, it was alleged that the deceased Srinivas and also his mother had committed suicide at the instigation of accused No.1.

6. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the name of the petitioners herein is also referred in the death note and therefore there is a material against the petitioners herein and as such the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. It is submitted that accused No.1 was instigating the deceased to commit suicide at the instance of the petitioners parents and his brother. It is submitted that the petitioners earlier had filed complaint. The police has pacified the quarrel advising that accused No.1 should behave properly and this shows that there was a instigation at the instance of accused No.1.

7. Having heard the counsels appearing on both the sides and also on perusal of the records available on record, it appears that the main allegation is against accused No.1 who happens to be the wife of the deceased Srinivas. It is submitted that the petitioners herein who were staying separately in the neighboring house and their role is limited and the main quarrels used to be between accused No.1 and deceased Srinivas. It is submitted that when they were living separately it cannot be said that petitioners herein had instigated the deceased Srinivas.

8. On careful perusal of th