IN THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

BANGALORE RURAL AT ANEKAL

Crl.Mis.No. /2022
Between
Siddaraju,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at, Devamma Building,
Hanumanth Temple,
Hebbagodi, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural …Petitioner/Accused No.1

Permeant Address
R/at, Lokkanahalli Village,
Kolegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar

And
State by Hebbagodi PS
Represented by
Public Prosecutor …Respondent /Complainant

MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The petitioner above named humbly submits as follows:

1. For the service of all notices from this Hon’ble court the address of the
petitioner is as shown in the cause title and may also be served through his
counsel Sri. Vinod. N & Ramu V off/at. No,120/3, Jakkasandra Colony,
Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore Rural -562123.

2. The petitioner herein who has been arraigned as Accused No.1 in

Crime No.48/2022 registered by the Hebbagodi PS for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code has
presented this petition under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking an order to
enlarge him on Bail.
 3. The Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any
offence, let alone those alleged in this case and the Petitioner had filed
this application seeking to be enlarged on bail on the following facts
and grounds.
4. The Petitioner is filing this petition seeking for enlargement on bail on
the following facts and grounds, amongst others.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to Respondent police facts of the case are that, on 10/02/2022 at
6:15 pm, by one complainant namely Sathya i.e., Brother of deceased living
in Hebbagodi lodged a complaint stated that “his sister i.e., deceased had a
love affair with neighbour village Siddaraju i.e., petitioner herein and they
got married since 7 months and she was 2 months pregnant and they were
living at Devamma Building near Hanuman Temple in a rented house i.e.,
incident place.

He also mentions that, deceased mother-in-law i.e., Gangamma stayed in the

incident place 10 days before the incident happened/occurred, during her stay
here there were quarrels happened between deceased and her mother-in-law
for this reason my brother-in-law i.e., petitioner herein had scolded my sister
i.e., deceased and complainant further stated that, his sister informed all this
matter to his mother through phone and also she mentioned about mental
harassment. Based on the said written report the respondent police registered
a FIR No.48/2022 under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against petitioner herein
and his mother i.e., Accused No.1 & 2 Respectively. The True Copy of the
FIR and Complaint are herewith produced as Documents No.1 & 2.

GROUNDS
A. The Petitioner humbly submits that he is innocent about the alleged
offences and has not committed any of the offences alleged.
B. The petitioner humbly submits that an entirely false case has been
foisted against him and he has been falsely implicated in the above case
though he is innocent of the alleged offences. The Petitioner is working
& residing at Bangalore and he never involved in the alleged case.

C. The Petitioner submits that, there are no criminal antecedents against

the petitioner.

D. The Petitioner submitted that, there is no ingredients of offence under

section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances
of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code:

E. The petitioner submits that, no serious allegations have been made as

against the petitioner herein except saying that “ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅತ್ತೆರವರಿಗೆ

ಆಗಾಗ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಅಗಿರುತ್ತೇದೆ, ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಗಂಡನಾದ ಸಿದ್ದ ರಾಜು ನನ್ನ

ತಂಗಿಗೆ ಬೈದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆತನು ತಂಗಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡುತ್ತಿದು ಬೇರೆಯವರ

ಬಳಿ ಮಾತಾನಾಡಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಟ್ಟು ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಹಿಂಸೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.” Used to

harass but there is no abatement or instigation to commit suicide.

F. The petitioner submits that, the fundamental principle of criminal law

that the accused presumed to be innocent until found guilty by
competent court.

G. In Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1)

SCC 750 it was held that Para No.21 the intention of the Legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to
convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.
H. The Hon’ble Apex Court was observed in Mahendra Singh &
Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731. the allegations
levelled are as under: -

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder

brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My
husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being
harassed I want to die by burning."

The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that

by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of
the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant
under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned
allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

In the entire allegation in the complaint against the petitioner is that “ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ

ಮತ್ತು ಅತ್ತೆರವರಿಗೆ ಆಗಾಗ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಅಗಿರುತ್ತೇದೆ, ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಗಂಡನಾದ

ಸಿದ್ದ ರಾಜು ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿಗೆ ಬೈದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆತನು ತಂಗಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡುತ್ತಿದು

ಬೇರೆಯವರ ಬಳಿ ಮಾತಾನಾಡಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಟ್ಟು ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಹಿಂಸೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. in the

said allegation under section 306 of IPC ingredients is not attracted.

I. The petitioner submits that, deceased and petitioner were in love affair
and then got married i.e., inter caste marriage against the deceased
 family. Because of said reason the deceased family falsely implicated
to this case.
J. The Petitioner Submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was
claimed while referring to the case of Amalendu Pal Vs State of West
Bengal (2010) that the abetment of suicide by the accused is prima facie
evidence of harassment by them, which encouraged the deceased’s suicide.
Also, as stated in the judgment of the case Rajesh Vs State of Haryana
(2019), conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable based solely on
the allegation of harassment without some positive action on the part of the
accused close to the time of the occurrence that led or compelled the
individual to commit suicide.
K. The petitioner submits that, there were no earlier complainants against
the petitioner herein at any time. Further submit that, the deceased
committed suicide in the rented house of the petitioner by hanging and
petitioner is working as security guard in Hegde Precision Products Pvt
Ltd at Bangalore, petitioner was not in the house when the incident
took place. After petitioner return he was informed about the facts.
there is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner to the suicide
committed by the deceased.
L. The petitioner submits that, the fundamental principle of criminal law
that the accused presumed to be innocent until found guilty by
competent court.
M.The petitioner submits that; the incident was knowing/knowledge to
complainant around 8:30 am but complaint was register at 6:15 pm
around lapse of more than 10 hours’ delay and petitioner further
submits that, delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the
prosecution but the valid reason must be explained.
N. The petitioner submits that, the petitioner and deceased were in love
with each other and both got married and they were leading happy life
as husband and wife.
O. The petitioner submits that, having regard to the materials on record
there is no prima facie evidence nor reasonable grounds to believe the
involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged. Therefore, he is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
P. The petitioner submits that the complaint against the Petitioner is
motivated and false allegations have been made against the Petitioner
with an intention to harass him. It is submitted that the Petitioner has
deep roots in society and there is no danger that he will abscond.

Q. It is submitted that looking at the Complaint filed by the Respondent

Police will not disclose any offence against the Petitioner as alleged in
the Complaint. The ingredients of the offences alleged are not made
out against the Petitioner. The Complaint is clearly filed only for the
purpose of harassing the Petitioner. The Petitioner is merely aged
about 26 years and has a bright future before him.

R. The Petitioner further submits that, the Petitioner name has been falsely
implicated by the Respondent police and the Petitioner name has been
falsely implicated in the alleged offences even though he has not
committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent police and at no
point of time the Petitioner has involved in the alleged crime.
S. That there is absolutely no prima facie case as against the Petitioner in
respect of the offences alleged even if the entire allegations made in the
complaint and there is absolutely no incriminating material to connect
the Petitioner to the offences in question.
T. It is submitted that the Petitioner is falsely implicated by the highly
influential persons. There is not even iota of allegation against the
Petitioner either in the complaint or in the matter of holding out threats
to the complainant therefore viewing from any angle the Petitioner is
innocent of the allegations leveled against him and there was absolute
no involvement whatsoever on the part of the Petitioner in respect of
the alleged lien as offences in question.
 U. It is submitted that, there is no material to show that, the Petitioner has
committed the offence, it clearly shows that, the police have falsely
implicated the petitioner in the alleged offence and the Petitioner has
made out a case to grant the regular and this Hon'ble Court has to
consider the regular bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that
there is no involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence.

V. The Petitioner submit that in case the Petitioner is not granted the
regular bail from this Hon'ble Court in which event the Petitioner
would be put to great hardship and his old parents and family members
were also put to great hardship. Hence the present application is filed
by the Petitioner.

W. The Petitioner is a resident living within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court. Hence the question of jumping over the jurisdiction or
fleeing from justice does not arise.

X. That, the petitioner will be put to greater injustice, inconvenience, and

loss in the event if the bail is not granted and so also, he will be
deprived of his personal liberty guaranteed under the constitution.

Y. The Petitioner is poor person and only bread earner of his entire family
comprised of his aged parents. He is the law-abiding citizen and is
ready and willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble
court and abide by any condition.

Z. That, the petitioner may be permitted to urge any other legal grounds at
the time of hearing the petition on its merits.

WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.48/2022, pending on the
file of the Court of 2nd Addl Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Anekal in the
interest of justice & equity.

Anekal

Dt: Advocate for Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

BANGALORE RURAL AT ANEKAL
Crl.Mis.No. /2022
Between
Siddaraju, …Petitioner/Accused No.1

And
State by Hebbagodi PS …Respondent /Complainant

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

That the under signed advocate has been instructed by the Accused to

represent his in this matter before this Hon’ble Court. Under such

circumstances the Advocate for the Accused request this Hon'ble court to

grant leave to the undersigned Advocate to represent the Accused in the

above mentioned matter in the interest of justice and equity. 

Place: Anekal
DATE:                        Advocate for Petitioner

                                                                                              Vinod N
KAR/1828/2019
 Ramu V
KAR/1628/2019

  Office address
                                                                                                   

IN THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

BANGALORE RURAL AT ANEKAL
Crl.Mis.No. /2022
Between
Siddaraju, …Petitioner/Accused No.1

And
State by Hebbagodi PS …Respondent /Complainant

INDEX
SL. No Particular Page
No
1 Memorandum of Application under section 439 of Crpc

2 Annexure “A” & “B” – Copy of the FIR & Complaint

3 Memo of Appearance

4 Process Memo

Anekal
Date:- Advocate for Petitioner