J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Spl.C. No. 53/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail petition of appellant - accused sought in respect of crime No. 442/2023 of Madivala Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the `SC ST (POA) Act’) and Section 306 of IPC came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

3. Case of the prosecution as stated in column No.

17 of the charge sheet is that about 1-½ year ago the appellant - accused married the deceased Geetha and it was a love marriage and they were residing in Bengaluru. The appellant - accused was not going for work and in that regard there were quarrels between them. The appellant - accused used to abuse the deceased on the ground that she belonged to lower caste. The deceased told the appellant - accused to go for work otherwise she will commit suicide. At that time, the appellant - accused told her that if she dies nothing will happen and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a fan on 25.10.2023. The appellant - accused came to be arrested. Even though FIR is registered for offence under Section

304-B and 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) of SC ST (POA) Act, charge sheet came to be filed only for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act. The appellant - accused came to be arrested on 26.10.2023 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant - accused filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the Special Court by the impugned order. Said order rejecting the bail application is challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant – accused would contend that the marriage of deceased and appellant - accused was a love marriage and out of that love marriage they gave birth to a male child. The deceased was residing in her parents house after giving birth to the child. He contends that merely asking to go and die does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. As the marriage was a love marriage, there was no question of abusing the wife by taking the name of her caste. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant - accused is not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the appellant - accused used to harass the deceased by abusing her by taking the name of her caste and he told her to die when she asked him to go for work. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against appellant - accused for offence alleged against him. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for parties this Court has perused the impugned order and material placed on record.

7. The marriage of the deceased with the appellant - accused was a love marriage which had taken place 1-½ year prior to the incident. Out of the marriage, a male child is born. There used to be quarrel between the deceased and her husband – appellant - accused as he was not going for work and she told that if he does not go to work she will commit suicide. At that time the appellant - accused told her that if she commits suicide nothing will happen and thereafter the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Whether the said act of the appellant - accused amounts to abetment to commit suicide is a matter to be decided during trial. As charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. The appellant - accused has made out a case for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail with conditions.

8. In the result, the following;

O R D E R

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dat