The petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 4 are before this

Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail pertaining to

Crime No.58 of 2022 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, it having been

turned down by the VIII Additional District & Sessions

Judge,

Mysore,

sitting

at

Hunsur

in

Criminal

Miscellaneous No.451 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.S.Vinayaka,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent.

- 3 -

3. The facts in brief are:

A crime is registered in Crime No.58 of 2022 on

26.02.2022, on a complaint made by one Smt. B.S.Divya,

wife of Manjunatha, alleging that her father Swamigowda

had committed suicide on account of the petitioners and

accused No.1 hurling abuses in filthy language on

23-02-2022. The father of the complainant dies by

consuming tablets which contained poison. He was

immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment and

despite receiving medical treatment, the father of the

complainant died at about 6.05 p.m. on 26-02-2022. On

registration of the crime, the petitioners/accused 2, 3 and

4 approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing an

application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge declined to grant

anticipatory bail on the ground that the offences alleged

were punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and

involvement of the petitioners requires to be assessed.

The investigation is pending and if the petitioners are

granted anticipatory bail, they may threaten prosecution

witnesses and are likely to commit similar offence. It is

- 4 -

this rejection that drives the petitioners to this Court in

the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would vehemently argue and contend that the incident of

hurling abuses even if it is construed to be true has

happened on 23.02.2022, the complaint is registered only

on 26-02-2022. The allegation is that, the petitioners

along with others have verbally abused the father of the

complainant uttering <you may go and die= and on

frustration, the father of the complainant consumes

tablets containing poison. The learned counsel would

submit that there is no nexus or proximity to the incident

of commission of suicide that is required under Section

306 of the IPC and would submit that the petitioners be

granted anticipatory bail failing which, they would be

arrested and would be put to grave hardship.

5. On the other hand, learned High Court

Government Pleader would seek to sustain the order of

rejection of anticipatory bail on the ground that the

petitioners are prima facie guilty of the ingredients of

- 5 -

offence under Section 306 of the IPC and would seek

dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

7. The commission of suicide by the father of the

complainant by consuming tablets containing poison on

26.02.2022, is not in dispute. The exact abuses hurled on

the father of the complainant is <§zÀÄQgÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ J°è DzÀgÀÆ

ºÉÆÃV ¸Á¬Ä.= This is hurled on 23-02-2022, three days

prior to the date of commission of suicide. There is no

foundation laid in the complaint by narration that the

petitioners were present or have instigated the deceased

to commit suicide to an extent that there was no other

option left to the accused. At this stage, it is appropriate

to notice the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case

of M.ARJUNAN v. THE STATE 3 (2019) 3 SCC 315,

wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

<7. The essential ingredients of the

offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the

abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to

aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit

- 6 -

suicide. The act of the accused, however,

insulting the deceased by using abusive

language will no, by itself, constitute the

abetment of suicide. There should be evidence

capabl