High Court

1. Heard Shri Ambrish Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.007 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 24.10.2024:- "1. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.S. Yadav as well as Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Vivek Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State; and Shri Hari Om Singh, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/complainant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 7 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has stated that in the issue in question, the investigation is going on and no police report has been filed till date. One writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6473 of 2024 has been filed by the informant/complainant before this Court seeking a direction to the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file police report. On such petition, this Court by means of order dated 6.9.2024 (annexure no. 11) directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to ensure that the investigation is positively concluded and police report is submitted within a period of four weeks, fixing next date for 25.10.2024.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even if the averment of the FIR is considered on its face value, even then there is no overt act of the present applicant instigating/abetting the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide. As per allegation of the FIR, the brother of the informant/complainant committed suicide on account of ill behaviour and threats being extended to him by the family members of one Jyoti Arya with whom, he was in live in relationship and the said Jyoti Arya committed suicide. The family members of Jyoti Arya have been implicated as accused persons as accused nos. 1 to 4 who are residents of Rajasthan, whereas the present applicant and his family members have been implicated in the array of the accused persons from accused nos. 5 to 7 who are the residents of Bareilly, U.P.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has stated that the present applicant is not a relative of accused nos. 1 to 4 cited in the FIR. She has been alleged as the mother of Rachna @ Gullan, who has been cited as accused no. 6 in the FIR. Nothing has been indicated or alleged as to how the present applicant instigated/abetted the brother of the informant/complainant to commit suicide.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 by submitting that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and 14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are being reproduced below: "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work." (emphasis supplied)

7. Para 9 in of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra) is being reproduced herein-below: "9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.(See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1)." (emphasis supplied)

8. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Shri Sudeep Seth has submitted that in the present case, there is no overt act on the part of the present applicant and unless and until there is any overt act or positive act on the part of the applicant/accused to instigate/abet to commit suicide, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore, Shri Seth has submitted that in the present applicant may not be implicated under Section 306 IPC.

9. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that investigation is going on and the present applicant is willing to participate in the investigation. Furthermore, the present applicant is an old lady aged about 57 years, therefore, her liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report.

10. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that though the suicide note of the deceased is undated and incomplete but the same has been addressed to the present applicant, wherein before committing suicide, the victim (since deceased) has narrated his grievance which is mainly against the present applicant, therefore, it may not be said that the present applicant was not having any active role to compel the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide.

11. Learned AGA has further stated that the present applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. He has requested that some time may be given to him to file counter affidavit.

12. On that, Shri Seth has stated that one lady with whom the victim (since deceased) was earlier living, had committed suicide in the year 2017 and he remained in a mental asylum for about 20 months which has been admitted in the alleged suicide note, therefore, the story so narrated by the victim (since deceased) before his suicide may not be accepted at this stage.

13. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), contents and allegation of the FIR, other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

14. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Rajwati, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of the investigation and filing of police report on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:- (i). the applicant is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 26.10.2024 at 11.00 am to cooperate in the investigation proceedings and shall provide all required information, material or evidence which is within her possession and shall cooperate with the investigation in future, failing which any appropriate application may be filed by the State to cancel the protection being given to the applicant by means of this order. (ii). that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (iii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iv). that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (vi). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vii). that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

15. List and connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2403 of 2024.

16. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the opposite parties.

17. When the case is next listed, the name of Shri Hari Om Singh, Advocate be printed as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party. ."

4. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation as well as copy of the charge sheet dated 08.11.2024.

5. From the material placed along with the counter affidavit, no such fact has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view different from the one taken at the time of grant of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.10.2024. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of an order dated 24.10.2024 is made absolute and this anticipatory bail application stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Gurpreet Singh [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

1. Heard Shri Ambrish Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.007 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 24.10.2024:- "1. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.S. Yadav as well as Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Vivek Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State; and Shri Hari Om Singh, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/complainant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 7 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has stated that in the issue in question, the investigation is going on and no police report has been filed till date. One writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6473 of 2024 has been filed by the informant/complainant before this Court seeking a direction to the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file police report. On such petition, this Court by means of order dated 6.9.2024 (annexure no. 11) directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to ensure that the investigation is positively concluded and police report is submitted within a period of four weeks, fixing next date for 25.10.2024.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even if the averment of the FIR is considered on its face value, even then there is no overt act of the present applicant instigating/abetting the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide. As per allegation of the FIR, the brother of the informant/complainant committed suicide on account of ill behaviour and threats being extended to him by the family members of one Jyoti Arya with whom, he was in live in relationship and the said Jyoti Arya committed suicide. The family members of Jyoti Arya have been implicated as accused persons as accused nos. 1 to 4 who are residents of Rajasthan, whereas the present applicant and his family members have been implicated in the array of the accused persons from accused nos. 5 to 7 who are the residents of Bareilly, U.P.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has stated that the present applicant is not a relative of accused nos. 1 to 4 cited in the FIR. She has been alleged as the mother of Rachna @ Gullan, who has been cited as accused no. 6 in the FIR. Nothing has been indicated or alleged as to how the present applicant instigated/abetted the brother of the informant/complainant to commit suicide.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 by submitting that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and 14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are being reproduced below: "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work." (emphasis supplied)

7. Para 9 in of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra) is being reproduced herein-below: "9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.(See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1)." (emphasis supplied)

8. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Shri Sudeep Seth has submitted that in the present case, there is no overt act on the part of the present applicant and unless and until there is any overt act or positive act on the part of the applicant/accused to instigate/abet to commit suicide, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore, Shri Seth has submitted that in the present applicant may not be implicated under Section 306 IPC.

9. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that investigation is going on and the present applicant is willing to participate in the investigation. Furthermore, the present applicant is an old lady aged about 57 years, therefore, her liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report.

10. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that though the suicide note of the deceased is undated and incomplete but the same has been addressed to the present applicant, wherein before committing suicide, the victim (since deceased) has narrated his grievance which is mainly against the present applicant, therefore, it may not be said that the present applicant was not having any active role to compel the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide.

11. Learned AGA has further stated that the present applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. He has requested that some time may be given to him to file counter affidavit.

12. On that, Shri Seth has stated that one lady with whom the victim (since deceased) was earlier living, had committed suicide in the year 2017 and he remained in a mental asylum for about 20 months which has been admitted in the alleged suicide note, therefore, the story so narrated by the victim (since deceased) before his suicide may not be accepted at this stage.

13. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), contents and allegation of the FIR, other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

14. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Rajwati, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of the investigation and filing of police report on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:- (i). the applicant is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 26.10.2024 at 11.00 am to cooperate in the investigation proceedings and shall provide all required information, material or evidence which is within her possession and shall cooperate with the investigation in future, failing which any appropriate application may be filed by the State to cancel the protection being given to the applicant by means of this order. (ii). that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (iii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iv). that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (vi). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vii). that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

15. List and connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2403 of 2024.

16. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the opposite parties.

17. When the case is next listed, the name of Shri Hari Om Singh, Advocate be printed as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party. ."

4. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation as well as copy of the charge sheet dated 08.11.2024.

5. From the material placed along with the counter affidavit, no such fact has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view different from the one taken at the time of grant of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.10.2024. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of an order dated 24.10.2024 is made absolute and this anticipatory bail application stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Gurpreet Singh [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]