Heard Shri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 / State. Notice to

respondent No.2 is served.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant is the father of the deceased. It is

alleged that, he is the resident of Annura village, Alanda taluk

and he was doing coolie work. It is further stated that, he is

having three children. Out of three children, the elder son

namely Vittala had gone to Goa for work and daughter Pooja

and another son Praveena were with him. It is further

submitted that, the said Praveena was studying X standard.

After completing his X standard, he got admission at Junior

College, Alanda and he was staying in the hostel. It is further

stated that, whenever the said Praveena visited his house

during vacation, it is alleged that, he had affair with Sonali,

wife of the appellant. The appellant had called the brother of

the deceased and warned him that, he would kill the deceased

if he continued the illicit relationship with his wife. It is further

- 3 -

alleged that, the deceased being afraid of the said threatening

of the appellant and his brother to the elder brother of the

deceased, he had committed suicide in his hostel room. On

coming to know the said fact, the father of the deceased had

lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The police

have registered a case in Crime No.183/2022 for the offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 149 of IPC and Section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC/ST

(POA) Act”).

3.

Shri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the allegations made against the

appellant do not attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.

There is no whisper in the complaint on which date and what

time the appellant had called the elder son of the complainant

and threatened him that, they would kill deceased Praveena for

his illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant. Mere

assumption and presumption are not sufficient to prove the

criminal case and there is no whisper regarding averments

pertaining to the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015

(Amended). It is further submitted that, the appellant is falsely

implicated in this case. He is the permanent resident of Annur

- 4 -

village and he is in judicial custody since 01.02.2023. He will

abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of

his release on bail and the alleged offences are neither

punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. As such,

learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

4.

Per contra, Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned

High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the

appeal and also opposed the granting of bail, stating that, the

appellant is the husband of Sonali. It is alleged that, the

deceased Praveena had an affair with Sonali who is the wife of

the appellant herein, the appellant and his brother threatened

the brother of deceased Praveena that they would kill Praveena

for his illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant. Being

afraid of the said threat, the deceased committed suicide in his

hostel room, as such, there is a nexus between the crime and

involvement of the appellant in connection with the death of

the deceased Praveena. As such, the appellant is not entitled

for bail.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it is

alleged that the deceased Praveena was studying in I PUC and

- 5 -

was staying in a hostel at Alanda. He used to come to his

village whenever there was vacation and also alleged that, he

had an affair with Sonali who is none other than the wife of the

appellant. On coming to know the said fact, the appellant and

his brother have threatened the elder brother of the deceased

that they would kill the deceased Pravee